People v. Gardner CA2/6

Filed 3/16/26 P. v. Gardner CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B340350 (Super. Ct. No. 24ARCF00258) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

THOMAS JAMES GARDNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Thomas James Gardner appeals following an open plea to five counts of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).1 Appellant contends “the trial court erred when it denied [his] request for the mental health diversion based on the court’s conclusion that [his] mental health did not play a significant role in the commission of the offenses.” We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion and will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND An amended information charged appellant with five counts of first degree residential burglary committed over

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

approximately six weeks. Appellant filed a petition for mental health diversion pursuant to section 1001.36. Dr. Robin Campbell conducted a psychological evaluation of appellant. In her opinion, he “suffers from major depressive disorder, moderate, recurrent, complicated by substance abuse. He has depressive symptoms that include sad mood, feeling hopeless, social withdrawal, loneliness, feeling helpless, anhedonia, avolition, feelings of guilt, and self-recrimination. He would also qualify for a diagnosis of an amphetamine-type use disorder and a cannabis use disorder.” Dr. Campbell believed appellant’s “mental disorder played a significant role in the commission of the charged offense.” She noted that he was suffering from symptoms of depression at the time of the alleged offense and “has habitually used substances to numb his intensely painful emotions.” Dr. Campbell opined appellant “was not able to perceive events accurately or respond appropriately to them.” Appellant submitted a conditional letter of acceptance to a dual diagnosis residential treatment program. At the hearing, the trial court observed that “the purpose of the mental health diversion program is increased diversion of individuals with mental health disorders to mitigate the individual’s entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety.” The court denied diversion on three independent bases. First, the court found appellant’s “mental health disorder was not a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.” The court found “clear and convincing evidence” that appellant’s “alleged mental health disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factors [sic] to [his] involvement in the alleged offense.”