People v. Busby CA3

Filed 12/31/25 P. v. Busby CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102127 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24FE00474) v.

PHILLIP ROBERT BUSBY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Phillip Robert Busby pleaded no contest to robbery of a local supermarket. On appeal, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36.1 The People concede that the court erred in finding Busby ineligible for diversion. The concession is well taken. We conditionally reverse the judgment, vacate the trial court’s order denying diversion, and remand the matter for a new hearing on Busby’s motion.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND In October 2023, Busby and a companion entered a supermarket. Busby took various items, placed them in a bag, and left the store without paying. The store’s loss prevention officer confronted Busby, and a struggle ensued. Busby eventually grabbed the bag from the officer and fled the scene. The People charged Busby with second degree robbery. (§ 211.) They further alleged that he had a prior strike based on a 2018 conviction for first degree burglary. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) In July 2024, Busby filed a motion for mental health diversion under section 1001.36. His motion attached a report from a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) stating that he had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression and that he “was likely experiencing ongoing symptoms of anxiety” during the alleged crime. The prosecution opposed the motion, arguing that Busby had failed to present sufficient evidence of his diagnosis. The People also maintained that clear and convincing evidence showed that Busby’s mental health disorder was not a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. The prosecution attached copies of Busby’s criminal record as well as police reports from the current and prior offenses. During an August 2024 hearing on the motion, the trial court asked Busby to focus his argument on the nexus between his mental disorders and the alleged crime. Busby argued that symptoms of depression “include impaired decision making, difficulty thinking, feelings of hopelessness, and decreased emotional regulation.” He noted the LCSW’s opinion that he was likely experiencing ongoing symptoms of anxiety during the alleged crime. Busby also told responding law enforcement officers that he was in difficult economic circumstances because of his mental health, leading him to take items from the store. The prosecution argued that the police reports and Busby’s criminal history, which included three prior thefts, supplied clear and convincing evidence that his anxiety and