People v. Harlow

Filed 8/5/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084252

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SWF2000210)

JIMMIE H. HARLOW,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Brian Hill, Judge (Retired Judge of the Santa Barbara Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) and John M. Monterosso, Judge. Conditionally reversed. Stephanie A. Lickel, under the appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Christine Levingston Bergman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

To qualify for mental health diversion under Penal Code section

1001.36,1 criminal defendants must show they are both “eligible” and “suitable” for the program. Consistent with its intent to apply mental health diversion “as broadly as possible” (People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149), the Legislature amended the statute effective January 1, 2023 to make it much easier for defendants to establish threshold eligibility (Stats. 2022, ch. 735, § 1). They are generally eligible for diversion if within the last five years “they ‘ha[ve] been diagnosed’ with a recognized mental disorder.” (Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891 (Sarmiento), quoting § 1001.36, subd. (b)(1).) Such a diagnosis “creates a presumption that the defendant’s diagnosed mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged crime.” (Sarmiento, at p. 891.) The presumption can only be rebutted by “clear and convincing evidence that [the mental disorder] was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.” (§ 1001.36, subd. (b)(2), italics added.) In this case, having been charged with one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) for an incident that occurred in April 2020, defendant Jimmie H. Harlow filed a motion for mental health diversion in September 2023. In support of the motion, he submitted a diagnosis of several mental disorders made by a qualified mental health expert two months earlier. Although the court found that Harlow had “a recent diagnosis of a qualified mental health disorder,” it nonetheless concluded he was ineligible because it believed a diagnosis three years after the crime did not indicate that the disorder “played a significant factor in the charged offense.” (Italics added.)