People v. Nelson

Filed 3/5/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B342722 (Super. Ct. Nos. 23CR07410, Plaintiff and Respondent, 24CR03471) (Santa Barbara County) v.

RYAN ANTHONY NELSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

The Court of Appeal does not sit as “trier of fact” when reviewing a trial court’s ruling either granting or denying a motion for mental health diversion. It does not substitute its discretion for that of the trial court. The rules on appeal are well known and need not be repeated. (See, e.g., Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [presumption of correctness of a trial court order]; People v. Westerfield (2019) 6 Cal.5th 632, 713 [substantial evidence rule]; People v. Pacheco (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 207, 213 (Pacheco) [abuse of discretion]; see also In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 208, 211; Brown v. Newby (1940) 39 Cal.App.2d 615, 618.) Ryan Anthony Nelson appeals after he was sentenced to state prison for 12 years following a global disposition agreement

in which he pleaded guilty to three counts of commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), 1 one count of taking an automobile (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and admitted two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and multiple circumstances in aggravation (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(8)-(9), (b)(2)-(3), (5)). Appellant contends as follows: “The court denied the defense request for [mental health] diversion based on its finding that the disorders were not significant factors in the commission of the crimes and thus, appellant was ineligible, and that appellant was unsuitable due to his not being treatable and being dangerous due to his criminal history . . . . This ruling constituted an abuse of the court’s discretion and is not supported by the evidence.” As we shall explain, these contentions are without merit. Factual and Procedural Background Appellant has an extensive criminal history. We know from the probation report that appellant has had seven separate and distinct prison sentences for theft and theft-related crimes. Now, after spending most of his adult life in and out of prison, he contends, based upon a psychologist’s evaluation, that he suffers from mental health disorders which compelled him to be a recidivist thief. The trial court acknowledged that appellant “has been diagnosed with major neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, ADHD, [and] opioid-use disorder in early remission.” But the trial court, sitting as trier of fact, did not credit the psychologist’s opinion. As the trial court expressly