People v. Huntington CA3

Filed 3/13/26 P. v. Huntington CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C102727

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE018151)

v.

MICHAEL DARRELL HUNTINGTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following the denial of his pretrial request for mental health diversion, defendant Michael Darrell Huntington pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon. He now appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion when it found him unsuitable for diversion. Because substantial evidence supports the court’s determination that Huntington posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, we affirm.

1

BACKGROUND In October 2022, Huntington threw a glass mug at a victim’s face, causing injury. The People charged him with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1))1 and battery resulting in serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)), and alleged a prior strike conviction. Huntington moved for pretrial mental health diversion. In its opposition brief, the People detailed Huntington’s lengthy criminal history, which included: (1) a 1999 conviction for committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (a)); and (2) four subsequent convictions for failure to register as a sex offender (§§ 290, former subd. (g)(2); 290.018). The People also pointed out that while Huntington was out on bail in the current case, he committed domestic violence acts that were the subject of a separate case. As to the lewd and lascivious conduct conviction, Huntington told the court he mistakenly believed the child was 21 years old when he committed the offense. Huntington also claimed that his failures to register stemmed from his homelessness. The trial court found Huntington was not suitable for mental health diversion. The court explained: “The repeated actions of failing to follow his requirements, including registering, for a period of over 15 years, periodically, four times; he’s out on bail and he commits another offense[,] convinces this Court he is not suitable and that he would not follow through with any court order of mental health diversion. [¶] And additionally, I am concerned despite the explanation that given his failures to register, he does present an ongoing risk of committing a sexually violent offense of which he’s been convicted of once already. [¶] I find that if he is released he presents an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike.”