Thursday, July 2, 2026
Page 1
Mental Health Diversion Wrongly Denied to Man Who Fired at Gate Near Dwelling—C.A.
Defendant Shot 10 Bullets in Early Hours of Morning; Opinion Says Conduct Was Dangerous but Not to Extent of Constituting Disqualifying ‘Super Strike’
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A man who fired 10 rounds of bullets at a wood gate in front of a residential parking structure in the early hours of a morning did not display such dangerousness as to justify the denial of a mental health diversion, Div. Eight of this district’s Court of Appeal has declared.
The question before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dorothy L. Shubin was whether Gagik Adamyan, who was charged with shooting at an inhabited dwelling, is eligible for diversion under Penal Code §1001.36 in light of the proviso that the defendant would “not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety...if treated in the community.” An “unreasonable risk” is defined in terms of a likelihood to commit one of seven specified felonies, called “super strikes,” including murder.
Shubin noted that there “were ten bullet holes in the plywood” and the shots were “fired toward an apartment building” just “10 feet away from a witness’s apartment,” commenting that it was “[v]ery fortunate for Mr. Adamyan and everyone else that no one was hit…or injured.” She found there was more than “a reasonable possibility that Mr. Adamyan could commit a super-strike,” noting that his conduct was “so highly dangerous.”
Stratton’s Opinion
In an unpublished opinion filed Tuesday, Presiding Justice Maria E. Stratton pointed out that Adamyan shot the firearm at about 1:46 a.m. when people were not apt to be about and directly behind the gate was a concrete building. She wrote:
“No doubt it is dangerous whenever anyone is shooting a firearm in the middle of the night near residential buildings. But the diversion statute does not concern danger in the conventional sense of the word. It focuses exclusively on super strikes as the measure of dangerousness. Super strikes are a narrowly drawn subset of violent felonies involving extreme violence….In short, the Legislature limited the notion of unreasonable dangerousness to a very specific and extreme type of danger to public safety.”
Stratton continued:
“[T]here was no substantial evidence that Adamyan would commit murder if he were placed on mental health diversion in the community. While the trial court focused on the possibility of serious injury that could have resulted from Adamyan’s shooting 10 times at the plywood gate, that is not evidence, much less substantial evidence, that Adamyan would likely commit murder if he were placed on mental health diversion in the community, and none of the other facts of the offense or the offender suggest such a likelihood.”
Not Incarcerated
After the motion for a mental health diversion was denied. Adamyan no contest to the charge and Shubin sentenced him to two years of formal probation, conditioned on entering a residential treatment program. Stratton pointed out that the District Attorney’s Office agreed to the disposition, remarking:
“It is difficult to fathom that had the People formed the impression that Adamyan posed an unreasonable danger to public safety, they would have agreed to such a disposition. It is even harder to fathom that the trial court would have agreed to this disposition as well.”
The presiding justice opined:
“Here it is beyond cavil that the Legislature intended to ‘divert’ individuals out of the criminal justice system to stop the revolving door of convictions and incarcerations that untreated mental illness promotes. That Adamyan was placed in the same program but had to sustain a conviction and probationary sentence in order to get the treatment he needed is a telling indication that the trial court did not consider the Legislature’s intent. It chose conviction over diversion and then gave Adamyan the exact treatment he would have received under diversion. Under these facts and this statute, the days of conviction over diversion are no more.”
The opinion directs that the Superior Court grant the motion for diversion.
The case is People v. Adamyan, B341291.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company