Wednesday, April 22, 2026
Page 4
Court of Appeal:
Discretion to Dismiss After Diversion Grant Is Not Unfettered
Opinion Says Judge Erred in Ruling That Defendant Successfully Completed Mental Health Program Based on Her ‘Amazing Progress’ in Custody Following Her Arrest for New Crime Spree
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Sixth District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge erred in dismissing criminal charges faced by a defendant who was placed on mental health diversion based on a finding that the party made “amazing progress” while in custody for a new crime spree committed during the period of supervision, declaring that a court does not have “unfettered” discretion to determine what qualifies as satisfactory performance.
Justice Daniel H. Bromberg authored the March 24 opinion, which was certified for publication on Monday and published on the California Courts website yesterday. He remarked:
“Even though [the defendant] committed several dozen crimes while in the diversion program, the trial court found that she satisfactorily performed because of ‘amazing progress’ made after returning to custody….The mental health diversion statute does not authorize trial courts to find satisfactory performance unless a defendant substantially performs the requirements imposed on diversion, which [the defendant] did not.”
At issue is Penal Code §1001.36, which was adopted in 2018 to create a pathway to having all charges dismissed and an arrest deemed a legal nullity for certain defendants who have recognized mental health disorders and who “perform satisfactorily” under the program.
Mental Disorder
Sec. 1001.36 provides that a trial court may consider a defendant’s suitability so long as the party has not been charged with certain enumerated serious offenses and has been diagnosed with a recognized “mental disorder” that was a “significant factor in the commission of the…offense.” If a mental health expert opines that the condition is manageable, and the accused consents to treatment and waives her speedy trial rights, diversion is available.
Subdivision (h) further specifies:
“If the defendant has performed satisfactorily in diversion,…the court shall dismiss the…criminal charges….A court may conclude that the defendant has performed satisfactorily if the defendant has substantially complied with the requirements of diversion, has avoided significant new violations of law unrelated to the defendant’s mental health condition, and has a plan in place for long-term mental health care.”
Series of Burglaries
The question arose after Keena Landrine was charged in four complaints with a series of first-degree burglaries, among other charges, relating to a purported crime spree in which she walked into hospitals and a senior living center and stole from patients, employees, and elderly residents between June 2020 and April 2021.
In September 2021, then-Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Julianne Sylva granted her request for diversion under §1001.36 in all four cases upon her enrollment in an “intense” treatment program, warning the defendant that “relapsing, committing another crime, walking away from treatment” would result in “terminat[ion].”
A few months later, Landrine was purportedly up to her old tricks, having picked up multiple new cases for allegedly stealing from employees at an elder care facility and other health care centers. In March 2023, she was remanded without bail on the new charges.
While in jail, she met regularly with her substance-abuse sponsor, completed 15 therapy sessions, and completed three college-level courses and other life-skills classes. In February 2024, Sylva granted her diversion on the new charges and dismissed the older cases, finding that the relief was appropriate based on her “efforts in custody.”
The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office appealed the dismissal.
Limits on Discretion
Saying that “trial courts do not have unfettered discretion to determine that a defendant has performed satisfactorily,” Bromberg pointed out that §1001.36 lists conditions for the determination, including that the party must have substantially complied with the requirements imposed on diversion.
Reasoning that “the trial court imposed three requirements” on Landrine—that she stop abusing drugs, continue to participate in treatment, and refrain from continued criminal activity—based on Sylva’s admonishments to the defendant in September 2021, the jurist concluded that the defendant violated each one.
Pointing out that Landrine admitted to relapsing in January 2023, at which time she also refused certain drug treatment programs, he said:
“Landrine [also] repeatedly violated the prohibition against committing new crimes. Indeed, during diversion, prosecutors filed six complaints charging Landrine with 43 new offenses. These were not minor offenses, and they followed Landrine’s old pattern.”
No Compliance
Opining that the defendant “plainly did not comply—substantially or otherwise—with the requirements imposed on diversion,” Bromberg declared:
“[T]he Legislature did not leave the decision whether to dismiss criminal charges after a mental health diversion program to the trial court’s unfettered discretion. Instead, the mental health diversion statute expressly states that a trial court may conclude that a defendant has performed satisfactorily only if three conditions are satisfied….As Landrine failed to do this, the trial court had no authority to conclude that Landrine successfully completed diversion.”
He added:
“In reaching this conclusion, we do not mean to discount Landrine’s accomplishment in treatment. The record shows that that it was highly unusual and exemplary. However, the Legislature has chosen to structure the mental health diversion statute in broad strokes that do not permit courts to consider such accomplishments in the face of repeated, serious violations of the requirements of diversion. While this undoubtedly will come as a disappointment, we encourage Landrine to continue her laudable efforts at self-improvement.”
Acting Presiding Justice Allison M. Danner and Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Frederick S. Chung, sitting by assignment, joined in the opinion.
The case is People v. Landrine, 2026 S.O.S. 1071.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company