People v. Smith CA3

Filed 12/31/24 P. v. Smith CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099969

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23CF03571)

v.

DILLION ANTHONY SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Dillion Anthony Smith appeals from a judgment following his no contest plea to battery with serious bodily injury. Defendant argues the trial court failed to exercise its discretion by expressly denying his request for diversion and that any implied denial of his request was not supported by substantial evidence. Finding no merit to these contentions, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2023, while on a parole hold in jail, defendant and an accomplice attacked another inmate. The accomplice punched the victim from behind, hitting him on

1

the side of the head, causing the victim to fall to the ground. As the victim lay unconscious on the ground, defendant punched the victim in the face four times and kicked his head twice. The victim suffered multiple lacerations and bruises on his face and lost a significant amount of blood. A complaint charged defendant with one count of battery with serious bodily injury and with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. The complaint alleged a prior strike and a prior serious felony. Defendant pled no contest to the assault charge and waived his right to have aggravating circumstances determined at a jury or court trial. The trial court referred defendant to the Far Northern Regional Center to evaluate and provide a report on whether he qualified for diversion. The report stated defendant was eligible for diversion and treatment based on a cognitive developmental disability. However, the report noted defendant had been noncompliant with the terms of his parole, which resulted in several parole violations and defendant serving additional time in jail. The report also indicated that the Far Northern Regional Center was unable to provide defendant with housing services, which would result in defendant becoming homeless after his release from jail. For these reasons, the report concluded defendant was not a good candidate for diversion. Defendant argued he should be placed in a diversion program because the report determined he was eligible. Defendant asserted that the Far Northern Regional Center’s determination that he was not suitable for diversion was outside the scope of their statutory obligation. Defendant further argued that the Far Northern Regional Center had a duty to provide him with an individualized program even though he struggled with behavioral issues because they were directly related to his cognitive developmental disability. The probation report characterized defendant’s underlying battery offense as “more serious than other instances of the same crime” because the victim was