P. v. Hill CA2/3

Filed 8/24/26 P. v. Hill CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B348880

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. XCNBA505702

ANTHONY LAMONT HILL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Ray G. Jurado, Judge. Conditionally
reversed and remanded with directions.

Travis Daily, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Megan A. Donovan,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Anthony Lamont Hill challenges the superior court’s order
denying his pre-trial petition for mental health diversion under
Penal Code section 1001.36.1 In denying the petition, the
trial court stated the law compelled it to find Hill poses an
unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the
community because of the seriousness of the charged offenses.
As discussed below, we find the trial court abused its discretion
in failing to apply the correct legal standard. Accordingly, we
conditionally reverse the judgment, reverse the order denying
Hill’s petition, and remand the case for the trial court to
reconsider Hill’s petition.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The charges
The People charged Hill with two counts of attempted
willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (§§ 664, 187,
subd. (a)), two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm
upon a police officer (§ 245, subd. (d)(2)), and carrying a loaded
handgun in a prohibited area and without registration (§ 25850,
subds. (a), (c)(6)).
The People presented evidence at the preliminary hearing
showing two uniformed officers in a patrol vehicle noticed Hill
running with a handgun the evening of May 23, 2022. Hill ran
into an alley after the officers told him to stop and drop the gun.
The officers parked the vehicle in front of the alley. Hill turned
around, pointed a gun at the officers, and started shooting at
them. One of the officers fired back at Hill. A bullet struck the
driver side door of the patrol vehicle. The shots stopped, and
the officers eventually arrested Hill. They discovered his gun

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2
lacked a serial number and had a laser attachment. The gun’s
magazine had malfunctioned, which could have caused the gun
to malfunction. Hill admitted he fired four shots at the officers.
2. Petition for mental health diversion
In December 2024—about two and a half years after
his arrest—Hill filed a petition for mental health diversion.
Hill attached to his petition a report from Dr. Joel Peel Leifer,
who conducted a psychological evaluation of Hill in May 2024.
Dr. Leifer diagnosed Hill with stimulant-related disorder
(methamphetamine type), opioid-use disorder, and psychotic
disorder unspecified (either schizophrenia spectrum disorder
or substance-induced psychotic disorder). Dr. Leifer noted
the substance use disorders were “in a sustained remission
in a controlled environment.”
Hill told Dr. Leifer he attended an “honors” high school,
but he received bad grades because of his chaotic home situation.
Hill’s mother suffered domestic abuse and the family was
homeless at times. Hill’s sister was diagnosed with
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression.
Hill said he started experiencing psychotic symptoms
at age 17. He saw shadows moving in the room and was
scared that “somebody was gonna get me.” Hill started using
methamphetamine, Percocet, Xanax, and Fentanyl around
the same age. He used methamphetamine “non-stop.” Hill
said he “has attempted to curtail his methamphetamine use
but was unsuccessful.”
Regarding the incident leading to his arrest, Hill said
he was looking for his sister after she experienced psychotic
symptoms. While looking for his sister, Hill took a gun with him
because he “didn’t know where [he] was at” and did not feel safe.

3
Hill reported that he took “so much meth” the day of the incident,
had slept very little the night before, and had not eaten for days.
Hill heard voices telling him to run and watch his surroundings.
He was paranoid and thought the CIA was coming for him.
Hill was admitted into Correctional Health Services
after his arrest in May 2022. He was prescribed a number
of antipsychotics, anxiolytics, mood stabilizers, and
antidepressants. As of June 2022, Hill continued hearing voices
and his thought processes were circumstantial and tangential.
Hill stopped taking his prescribed medications in July
2022. Within three days, he was “naked, mumbling and
yelling incoherently.” Hill “had a fight, became hostile, [was]
uncooperative, hurt his left eye,” and expressed suicidal and
homicidal ideation. He smeared and licked feces, drank
toilet water, and refused to take his medications. In August
2022, Hill continued to engage in odd behavior, was sexually
inappropriate, and experienced auditory hallucinations.
Hill’s symptoms had “somewhat resolved” by September
2022, and they continued to improve in October 2022. Hill
expressed a desire to stay sober. As of March 2023, Hill “showed
signs that he was responding positively to treatment.” He denied
experiencing hallucinations.
On January 27, 2024, Hill said he had last used heroin
“ ‘2 weeks ago’ ” and last used Fentanyl “ ‘2 months ago.’ ”
Hill “appeared to be going through withdrawal symptoms.”
As of April 2024, Hill remained compliant with his
psychotropic medication regimen. Hill said he no longer
experienced auditory hallucinations during the day, but he
heard voices “in the middle of the night when he is half-asleep.”

4
Hill said overall he felt relaxed and was hopeful he could
qualify for diversion.
Dr. Leifer stated it was premature to “ascribe a specific
diagnosis to” Hill’s condition. He explained Hill’s psychotic
symptoms “have significantly, but not entirely, improved” from
abstention from substances and receipt of treatment. Dr. Leifer
asserted Hill’s “mild symptoms continue to improve the longer
he abstains from substances.”
Dr. Leifer opined Hill’s substance abuse and psychiatric
conditions played a significant role in the charged offenses.
He explained, “due to [Hill] having been under the influence of
mind-altering substances, his psychiatric symptoms exacerbated
and he was experiencing auditory hallucinations and paranoia
at that time.”
Dr. Leifer recommended Hill receive comprehensive
psychiatric and substance abuse treatment. He concluded Hill’s
symptoms would adequately respond to treatment. Dr. Leifer
noted medications had improved Hill’s symptoms, and Hill
no longer experienced depression or auditory hallucinations
during the day.
Dr. Leifer opined Hill would not pose an unreasonable
risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.
He noted Hill said he was trying to rehabilitate himself. For
example, at the time of his arrest, Hill had been in the process
of having his tattoos removed. Hill said he wanted to change
his whole life and not go back to jail. According to Dr. Leifer,
if Hill is treated in a comprehensive residential treatment
program with necessary components, “he would not pose
an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.”

5
Hill attached to his petition a letter verifying he could
receive treatment at a behavioral health center residential
program. Hill also submitted a letter stating he meets the
criteria for acceptance into the Department of Mental Health’s
Men’s Community Re-Entry Program.
3. The hearing
The court considered Hill’s petition at a hearing on
January 22, 2025. The People opposed the petition. The
prosecutor summarized the circumstances of the charged
offenses, including that Hill fired a “ghost gun” at the officers
and struck the door of their patrol vehicle. The prosecutor
argued attempted murder is a super strike, which “brings
us into the world where we have to conclude that if there’s
a problem in the future, yes, this person is likely to commit
a super strike.”
Defense counsel responded that Hill is young, has
no criminal history, and had never received treatment before
his arrest. According to counsel, Hill was “profoundly disabled”
and “not in his right mind” when he fired at the officers. Counsel
asserted Hill had stabilized and responded “remarkably well” to
treatment while in custody. Counsel argued there is no reason
to believe Hill will not continue his treatment while on diversion.
The court denied Hill’s petition for diversion. The court
stated it would not consider “perceived weaknesses” in the
prosecution’s case, but it would “consider the seriousness of
the charges.” The court acknowledged that Hill experienced
a “dramatic upbringing[ ].” However, the court stated, “It gives
me no pleasure to say this, but the law compels me to find that
based on the seriousness of the charges, Mr. Hill poses an

6
unreasonable risk of committing a super strike if he’s treated
in the community.”
On May 5, 2025, Hill pleaded no contest to a single count
of assault with a semiautomatic firearm upon a police officer
(§ 245, subd. (d)(2)) and admitted a firearm allegation (§ 12022.5,
subd. (a)). The court sentenced Hill to a term of 13 years in
prison. It dismissed the other charges in the interests of justice.
Hill timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Hill challenges the trial court’s order denying his petition
for mental health diversion. Hill argues the court abused its
discretion by failing to consider the requisite factors and relying
on a legally deficient ground to deny his petition. Hill also argues
there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that
he poses an unreasonable risk of danger. We conclude the court
abused its discretion by applying the wrong legal standard.
To qualify for mental health diversion, a defendant must
meet eligibility and suitability criteria. (Gomez v. Superior Court
(2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 685; Sarmiento v. Superior Court
(2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891.) If a defendant is both eligible
and suitable, the court “may, in its discretion” grant diversion.
(§ 1001.36, subd. (a).) “Thus, a diversion order is expressly
discretionary with the court, even when all of the criteria are
met.” (People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 9 (Doron); see
People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 53 [“section 1001.36
provides the trial court with discretion to deny diversion even if
it finds a defendant meets the statutory eligibility and suitability
criteria”].)
A defendant is eligible for diversion if he suffers from a
qualifying mental disorder that was a “significant factor” in the

7
commission of the charged offense. (§ 1001.36, subd. (b).)
A defendant is suitable for diversion if (1) a qualified mental
health expert opines the defendant’s symptoms will respond
to treatment, (2) the defendant consents to diversion and waives
the right to a speedy trial, (3) the defendant agrees to comply
with treatment, and (4) the defendant will “not pose an
unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” if treated in
the community. (Id., subd. (c).)
As to the last suitability requirement, a defendant poses
an “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” only if there is
an unreasonable risk he will commit a violent felony known as a
“super strike.” (People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449–
450 (Moine).) The list of “super strikes” includes, among other
offenses, murder and attempted murder. (Ibid.) To determine
whether the defendant poses an unreasonable risk of committing
such an offense, the trial court “may consider the opinions of the
district attorney, the defense, or a qualified mental health expert,
and may consider the defendant’s treatment plan, the defendant’s
violence and criminal history, the current charged offense, and
any other factors that the court deems appropriate.” (§ 1001.36,
subd. (c)(4); see Moine, at p. 450.) Nothing “precludes a
trial court from relying primarily, or even entirely, on the
circumstances of the charged offense or offenses in denying a
motion for diversion.” (People v. Bunas (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th
840, 862; see People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 799
[“the court acted within its discretion in determining that
the nature and manner of defendant’s charged crimes—and
particularly, the two super strikes—rendered her likely to
commit another super strike”].) However, no matter how serious
the charged offenses, the court retains discretion to find the

8
defendant does not pose an unreasonable danger.2 (See Graham,
at p. 799 [“Section 1001.36 grants broad discretion to the court
to consider any factors it deems appropriate when assessing
dangerousness.”].)
Here, the court concluded Hill is not suitable for diversion
because he poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety
if treated in the community. However, the court’s comments
at the hearing suggest it applied the wrong standard in reaching
that conclusion. The court stated it was “here to consider the
seriousness of the charges,” and “based on the seriousness
of the charges,” the law “compels” it to find Hill poses an
unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the
community. These comments suggest the court erroneously
believed, because of the seriousness of the charges, it lacked
discretion to find in Hill’s favor on the dangerousness issue.
It is possible the court meant to convey it felt compelled,
under the circumstances, to exercise its discretion to find Hill
poses an unreasonable risk. However, given the court did
not discuss the circumstances of the offenses or identify any
other factors it considered in reaching its decision, we are not
sufficiently confident of that fact. Therefore, we conclude the
court abused its discretion in denying the petition under the
mistaken belief that, because of the seriousness of the charges,
it lacked discretion to consider other information in finding Hill
would not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety if treated

2 A court may not grant diversion if the defendant is charged
with specified offenses, including murder and various sex
offenses. (§ 1001.36, subd. (d).) The People did not charge Hill
with any applicable offense.

9
in the community. (See Moine, supra, 62 Cal.App.5th at p. 449
[a court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal
standard].)
Hill “was entitled to the court’s informed discretion on his
motion for mental health diversion. [Citation.] A court unaware
of the scope of its discretionary powers ‘ “can no more exercise
that ‘informed discretion’ than one whose [decision] is or may
have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect
of a defendant’s record.” ’ [Citation.] Under these circumstances,
the proper remedy is to remand ‘unless the record “clearly
indicate[s]” that the trial court would have reached the
same conclusion “even if it had been aware that it had such
discretion.” ’ ” (Doron, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at p. 10; see
Moine, supra, 62 Cal.App.5th at pp. 451–452 [remanding for
reconsideration where court erroneously found defendant failed
to meet dangerousness suitability requirement]; see also People v.
Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 [remand for resentencing
is required when a court is unaware of the scope of its
discretionary powers, unless the record clearly indicates the
court would have reached the same conclusion had it been
aware of its discretion].)
Here, the record does not clearly indicate how the court
would have ruled had it applied the correct standard on the
dangerousness issue. Indeed, the court expressed some regret
that the law compelled it to find Hill posed an unreasonable risk
of danger. Moreover, the Attorney General does not argue Hill
otherwise was ineligible or unsuitable for diversion as a matter
of law. Accordingly, the proper remedy is a conditional reversal
and remand with directions to reconsider the petition under the
correct standard. (See People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 640

10
[approving Court of Appeal’s decision to conditionally reverse
a defendant’s convictions and sentence with instructions to
conduct a hearing to consider eligibility for mental health
diversion].) Nothing in our opinion precludes the court from
considering relevant evidence that did not exist at the time
of the prior hearing. We express no opinion on how the court
should rule on remand.3

3 Because we conclude a conditional reversal and remand
is required because the court applied the wrong legal standard,
we do not consider Hill’s other arguments on appeal.

11
DISPOSITION
We conditionally reverse the judgment and reverse the
order denying Hill’s petition for mental health diversion. We
remand with directions to reconsider whether Hill is eligible
and suitable for mental health diversion in accordance with this
opinion. If the trial court determines Hill qualifies for diversion
under section 1001.36, then the court may grant diversion. If
Hill successfully completes diversion, then the trial court shall
dismiss the charges. However, if the court determines Hill
is ineligible or unsuitable for diversion, or otherwise declines
to grant him diversion, or if Hill does not successfully complete
diversion, then his conviction and sentence shall be reinstated.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ASHWORTH, J.

We concur:

ADAMS, P. J.

HANASONO, J.


Retired Judge of the El Dorado Superior Court, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

12