People v. Little CA3

Filed 12/18/24 P. v. Little CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Siskiyou) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098774

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. SCCR-CRF- 2022-131, SCCR-CRF-2022- v. 548)

DAVID WAYNE LITTLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

After several incidents, the People charged defendant David Wayne Little with eight offenses, including robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, battery, and vandalism. Defendant requested pretrial mental health diversion pursuant to Penal Code section 1001.36.1 The trial court held a hearing and found that defendant was not suitable for pretrial diversion because he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On appeal, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by applying the wrong legal standard, failing to presume that defendant’s schizophrenia was a significant factor in the offenses, and finding defendant ineligible for pretrial mental health diversion. Our review of the record reveals that the trial court found defendant not suitable for diversion, as opposed to ineligible. Because defendant fails to offer any argument that the trial court erred by finding him not suitable, we will affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In January 2022, defendant stood in the middle of the street and slashed the front passenger door of a passing truck with a knife. In February 2022, police found defendant damaging property, and defendant kicked a police officer and resisted being detained. A few days later, defendant hit a gas station employee in the face and refused to leave the gas station. A few days after that, a man living out of his car allowed defendant to sleep in the car and share his food. The next day, defendant tried to take the man’s phone, eventually punching the man, throwing him down, and threatening him with a machete. Based on these incidents, the People charged defendant with vandalism and exhibiting a deadly weapon in case No. SCCR-CRF-2022-548, and with robbery, resisting an executive officer, battery upon a peace officer, vandalism, battery, and assault likely to produce great bodily injury in case No. SCCR-CRF-2022-131. Defendant requested pretrial mental health diversion pursuant to section 1001.36. Defendant argued his schizoaffective disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offenses, his symptoms would respond to treatment in the community, and he would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The People responded that the court should find defendant both ineligible and not suitable for diversion. Specifically, the People argued that: (1) defendant’s mental health disorder had not been a substantial contributing factor in his commission of the charged offenses and