Page 1
Ineligibility for Mental Health Diversion Based on DUI Charge Extends to All Counts—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A woman who was statutorily ineligible for a mental health diversion in connection with driving under the influence of alcohol was necessarily barred from such a rerouting of the case with respect to another count that was alleged in the same accusatory pleading, Div. One of this district’s Court of Appeal has determined.
Justice Gregory Weingart authored the Aug. 22 opinion which was certified for publication on Monday. It affirms a judgment by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rogelio Delgado in the case of Yvette Renee Garcia, saying:
“Vehicle Code section 23640 bars diversion ‘[i]n any case in which a person is charged with’ a DUI offense. (…italics added.) The charges against Garcia were part of a single case and a single course of conduct, and thus she is ineligible for diversion on all the charges.”
Garcia who, while intoxicated, intentionally rammed her vehicle into that of a motorist with whom she was engaged in an argument, pled no contest to a DUI and to assault with a deadly weapon. She maintained on appeal that while §23640 bars diversion in connection with the drunk driving count, it has no applicability to the assault charge.
There could be no dispute, she noted, that if a person were arrested for a DUI on one day and an assault the next day, there were would eligibility for diversion on the latter charge, were the criteria met. To deny the advantage to her simply because the two offenses were committed contemporaneously denies her equal protection, Garcia argued.
Weingart responded:
“Garcia has raised an intellectually interesting point, but it has nothing to do with her case. Garcia was charged with both DUI and non-DUI offenses, but she does not deny that all the charges arose from a single alleged action, when she drove her vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration over .08 and deliberately assaulted another driver with that vehicle. It was no accident that the People charged all three counts in a single accusatory pleading, and the Legislature could have rationally determined that to achieve its purpose of barring DUI offenders from diversion, it was necessary to treat offenses committed in conjunction with a DUI in the same way, especially if substance abuse contributed to the non-DUI offense.”
Publication of the opinion was requested by the district attorney’s offices in the counties of Los Angeles, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Orange, San Diego, Sonoma, and Yolo and by the California District Attorneys Association.
The case is People v. Garcia, 2025 S.O.S. 2488.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company