People v. Trammell CA3

Filed 1/9/26 P. v. Trammell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C101994

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23FE018641)

v.

SAMUEL TRAMMELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Samuel Trammel appeals the trial court’s denial of his application for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code,1 section 1001.36. Defendant contends the trial court’s finding that the People provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in his commission of the offenses was not supported by substantial evidence. The People concede the trial court’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence. We accept the concession and conditionally reverse the judgment and remand to the trial court for a new diversion eligibility hearing under section 1001.36. If the court determines that

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

defendant is eligible for diversion, it may grant his application. If the court determines defendant is ineligible, defendant’s convictions and sentence shall be reinstated. BACKGROUND Around 6:00 a.m. on May 22, 2023, the victim was standing outside her car in a parking lot texting on her cell phone when a man holding a gun and wearing some type of face covering approached her. He demanded her things. She handed him her cell phone, wallet, and the keys to her car. He used the keys to take the victim’s car. Defendant was later identified and arrested. An amended information charged defendant with carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a); count one) and robbery (§ 211; count two). Both counts included an enhancement for personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and five aggravating factors. The amended information also alleged that defendant suffered a prior strike conviction for burglary. (§§ 459, 1192.7, subd. (c), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) Defendant filed an application for pretrial mental health diversion. (§§ 1001.35, 1001.36.) The Department of Behavioral Health assessed and diagnosed him with major depressive disorder and substance abuse disorder. Defense counsel noted that because of his disorders, defendant was not high functioning in the community and resorted to theft as a means of surviving while living on the street. He had no super strikes and no prior crimes of violence. Defense counsel further argued, based on the report, that defendant would benefit from treatment through mental health diversion. The People opposed the application for pretrial mental health diversion. Although the People acknowledged that defendant reported experiencing mental health symptoms, they argued that the circumstances of the offense did not establish a nexus between the offense and defendant’s mental health disorder. Defense counsel noted in response that a nexus between defendant’s mental disorder and the commission of the offense was statutorily presumed.