People v. Huerta CA2/2

Filed 8/28/25 P. v. Huerta CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, B338779

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. KA132176)

JESUS ROBERT HUERTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Victor D. Martinez, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions. Derek K. Kowata, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorneys General, Jonathan J. Kline and Kristen J. Inberg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jesus Huerta appeals the denial of his motion for mental health diversion under Penal Code1 section 1001.36. Because insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellant was ineligible for mental health diversion because his substance abuse problem was not a motivating factor in his illegal possession of a gun, we conditionally reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 18, 2023, an officer was removing appellant from a vehicle when a black glove fell from his lap. Appellant told officers it contained methamphetamine, and a search of the car yielded methamphetamine pipes and a loaded firearm.2 On February 17, 2023, appellant was charged by information with possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)), and carrying a loaded handgun in a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a)). On April 15, 2024, appellant filed a motion for mental health diversion, which included a report from a psychiatrist who had examined appellant. The psychiatrist opined that appellant “has a significant substance abuse problem which needs to be addressed,” and that “he would be suitable for mental health diversion inasmuch as treatment will help with the substance abuse problem.” He further opined that appellant “could be safely managed in the community,” and that “[m]any of his issues