Filed 8/5/26 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B348960
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. Nos.
v. 24WCCF00079,
23WCCF00155
CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ
JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Joan M. Chrostek, Judge. Vacated 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, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Scott A Taryle and Kenneth C.
Byrne, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Christopher Rodriguez, Jr. was convicted of robbery and
inflicting corporal injury on his girlfriend. He appeals the trial
court’s order denying his motion for mental health diversion. We
reverse.
Rodriguez is a young man with mental health problems.
Those problems were a significant causal factor in his underlying
criminal behavior which occurred when he was off his medication.
At the time of his diversion hearing, however, he had consistently
complied with his medication regimen for about a year and half.
During that time, he did not engage in any criminal behavior.
After the trial court denied Rodrigeuz diversion, Rodriguez
pleaded no contest to the crimes he was charged with, and the
trial court placed him on formal probation for three years. On
appeal, Rodriguez contends the trial court’s finding that he was
unsuitable for diversion is unsupported by substantial evidence.
We agree.
We direct the trial court to vacate the order denying
Rodriguez’s motion for mental health diversion and to enter a
new order granting the motion unless there is evidence of
changed circumstances that provide a basis for denying the
motion consistent with this opinion. If the court finds changed
circumstances, it shall hold a further hearing on Rodriguez’s
motion for mental health diversion.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2024, the Los Angeles County District Attorney
filed two informations against Rodriguez in separate cases. One
information, in case number 23WCCF00155, charged Rodriguez
2
with willfully injuring his girlfriend. (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd.
(a).) The other information, in case number 24WCCF00079,
charged Rodriguez with robbery. (§ 211.)
In September 2024, the defense filed a motion for mental
health diversion under section 1001.36, which the prosecution
opposed.
On May 9, 2025, after hearing witness testimony and
argument, the trial court denied Rodriguez’s diversion motion. A
week later, the defense filed a motion for reconsideration of
mental health diversion, which the trial court also denied.
On September 2, 2025, Rodriguez pleaded no contest in
both cases. In the case involving Rodriguez injuring his
girlfriend, the court suspended execution of sentence and granted
him three years formal probation. In the robbery case, the court
sentenced Rodriguez to serve 28 days in county jail, then
awarded him that same amount of credit for time served.
Rodriguez timely appealed in both cases.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Rodriguez was charged with committing two crimes on or
around December 8, 2023. At the time, he was 18 years old and
he had no prior criminal history.
Robbery
We summarize the facts concerning Rodriguez’s robbery
from the testimony of the victim at the preliminary hearing.
Just after midnight on December 8, 2023, Dominic Nava,
an Uber Eats driver, was making a delivery in Rowland Heights.
After making the delivery, Nava walked back to his car where his
1 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
3
girlfriend was waiting. When Nava arrived at his car, Rodriguez
was standing by the driver’s side window. Rodriguez asked Nava
for a ride and Nava refused. Rodriguez kept insisting on Nava
giving him a ride as he blocked Nava from entering the car.
Rodriguez motioned toward his waistband in a way that made
Nava concerned he may have been gesturing toward a weapon.
Nava was worried because he did not know whether Rodriguez
had a weapon. Rodriguez told Nava he was going to steal his car.
Rodriguez snatched Nava’s phone out of his hand. Then, using
his own phone, Rodriguez took a picture of Nava’s license plate.
Rodriguez threatened Nava that he could find information about
Nava’s girlfriend using the license plate number if Nava reported
the incident to the police. Rodriguez told Nava he was going to
steal Nava’s car unless Nava called him an Uber, so Nava
complied. When the Uber arrived, Rodriguez got inside and left
with Nava’s phone.
Rodriguez’s infliction of corporal injury to his girlfriend
At the preliminary hearing in June 2024, Mia A. testified
about Rodriguez’s physical abuse in late evening of December 7
and early hours of December 8, 2023. Rodriguez committed
violence against Mia A. three times that night. First, in a park,
he punched Mia A. in the face and ribs about 10 times. Next, in
the living room at his grandmother’s house, he hit Mia A. with a
bat on her palms, legs, and back more than 10 times. Lastly, in a
bedroom in his grandmother’s house, Rodriguez hit Mia A. with
his fist and his phone in the face and ribs more than 10 times.
The police arrived at Rodriguez’s grandmother’s house in the
early morning.
At the mental health diversion hearing in May 2025, Mia
A. testified more broadly about Rodriguez’s abuse in November
4
and early December 2013, and Rodriguez’s struggles with mental
health. She testified that she was Rodriguez’s girlfriend for six
months. During the last months they dated, Rodriguez had a
mental health diagnosis and was supposed to be taking
medication, but he did not take it consistently.
During the last month they were together, Rodriguez was
abusive toward Mia A. Rodriguez slapped her in her face and
punched her in her face, ribcage, and throat. She estimated that
he slapped and punched her 60 times. He also hit her with a
wooden stick, a metal pipe, and a metal bat. She estimated that
he hit her with a wooden stick around 20 times and with a bat
around 10 times. He hit her with the metal pipe 10 times on one
occasion. He also bit her nose and headbutted her about 10
times. On one occasion, after he caused a gash on her finger by
hitting her with a pipe, Rodriguez forced Mia A. to put the finger
in hot water and salt, “and it was burning so bad that [she] would
take it out and he would . . . hit [her].”
The prosecution introduced photographs into evidence
depicting Mia A.’s injuries. Those photographs showed that Mia
A. sustained large bruises on her arm and leg, as well as
lacerations and swelling on her hands. Mia A. was also present
when Rodriguez robbed Dominic Nava, and the incident scared
her. She suffered severe symptoms related to stress stemming
from Rodriguez’s abuse.
Mia A. never reported the abuse to law enforcement
because Rodriguez told her “that he would hurt [her] family” if
she did. He threatened to “leave [her] dead in a ditch” if she
“didn’t obey him.” Rodriguez also threatened to harm her cat.
Mia A. was aware that Rodriguez was seeking mental
health diversion. The idea that he might be treated in the
5
community made her feel uncomfortable and unsafe. He had not
contacted her since a stay away order was issued in January
2024, roughly a year and four months before her mental health
diversion hearing testimony.
Evidence concerning Rodriguez’s mental health issues
and treatment adduced in the trial court
A. Synopsis
When Rodriguez committed his crimes, he suffered from a
psychotic episode. In the months before, he was not consistently
taking his oral medication for his mental health problems. In
late December 2023, however, Rodriguez began consistently
taking his medication through long-acting injections. Rodriguez
remained medication compliant while not committing additional
criminal offenses through the date of his diversion hearing in
May 2025. There was uncontradicted medical expert testimony
that Rodriguez was not at risk of committing a super strike if he
remained medication compliant.
B. Dr. Ruiz’s report assessing Rodriguez’s eligibility
and suitability for mental health diversion
Dr. Ruiz evaluated Rodriguez in July and August 2024, and
he submitted a report documenting his assessments of Rodriguez.
According to Dr. Ruiz’s report, Rodriguez stated that he had
experienced visual and auditory hallucinations. Rodriguez began
exhibiting symptoms of a mental health disorder when he was 16
years old, but he did not obtain mental health services until his
arrest. Rodriguez was 18 years old when he committed the
crimes that gave rise to this case. The record reflects that
Rodriguez had no criminal history prior to the present case.
Dr. Ruiz reported that Rodriguez meets the criteria for
bipolar I disorder with psychotic features. He opined that
6
Rodriguez’s mental health disorder was a significant factor in the
commission of the charged offenses. According to Dr. Ruiz,
Rodriguez “displayed symptoms consistent with the relevant
mental disorder such as irritability, emotional instability,
negative alteration in cognition, sleep difficulty, delusions of
grandeur, auditory hallucinations, using substances to ‘self-
medicate,’ and lack of insight into his mental illness.” Dr. Ruiz
further opined that Rodriguez’s “mental health symptoms and
behaviors would benefit from and respond to mental health
treatment[,] including medication support[ ] and case
management.” He stated Rodriguez had expressed that he was
motivated to participate in and comply with mental health
diversion. Significantly for purposes of the issue presented in
this appeal, Dr. Ruiz opined that Rodriguez did not pose an
unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the
community.
C. Letters from Dr. Vu documenting Rodriguez’s
consistent use of medication since his crimes and his
positive response to that medication
Dr. Timothy Vu was a board-certified clinician who oversaw
Rodriguez’s medication treatment. In a letter dated December
27, 2023, weeks after Rodriguez’s criminal offenses, Dr. Vu stated
that Rodrigeuz had switched from oral medication to long-acting
injectable medication to address his previous issues with not
taking his medication. In that letter, Dr. Vu reported Rodriguez
had shown early signs of marked improvement in his overall
symptoms after switching to injectable medication.
In a letter dated January 31, 2024, Dr. Vu stated that since
switching to injectable medicine, Rodriguez had demonstrated
significant improvement, including reduced delusions, paranoia,
7
and mood disturbance. Dr. Ruiz’s mental health report
subsequently indicated that as of September 10, 2024, Rodriguez
remained compliant with his medication and treatment regimens.
D. Dr. Ruiz’s testimony at the diversion hearing that
Rodriguez was suitable for diversion if he remained
medication compliant
At the May 2025 diversion hearing, following Mia A.’s
testimony, the defense called Dr. Ruiz. Dr. Ruiz evaluated
Rodriguez under Evidence Code section 730 and prepared a
report concerning Rodriguez after reviewing various relevant
documents. He diagnosed Rodriguez with bipolar I disorder with
psychotic features, in contrast with Rodriguez’s prior diagnosis of
“psychosis with enduring mood disturbance and a presumed
diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder” by another clinician.
Based on Mia A.’s testimony, Dr. Ruiz opined that
Rodriguez was experiencing a psychotic delusional episode when
he attacked her.2 Dr. Ruiz also believed Rodriguez was
experiencing a manic episode based on Mia A.’s testimony that he
had not been sleeping much. He added that Rodriguez’s bipolar
disorder could manifest in him threatening and torturing a
domestic violence victim.
From a review of Rodriguez’s mental health records, Dr.
Ruiz observed Rodriguez was receiving injectable medications,
which appeared to be working for him. Dr. Ruiz also noted that
Rodriguez was compliant with his treatment at a mental health
clinic. He testified that had Rodriguez been medicated, there
2 As an example, Dr. Ruiz noted that Rodriguez at one point
had a delusion that Mia A.’s fingers smelled like marijuana
despite no evidence supporting that belief.
8
would have been less of a risk that he would have attacked Mia
A. Dr. Ruiz did not believe Rodriguez was at risk of committing a
super strike if he “stay[ed] treatment compliant.” Dr. Ruiz did
note on cross-examination that Rodriguez would be at greater
risk of committing a super strike if he stopped taking his
medication.
DISCUSSION
The trial court abused its discretion in finding Rodriguez
unsuitable for diversion
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
Section 1001.36 gives trial courts the discretion to grant
pretrial diversion for individuals suffering from certain mental
health disorders. (People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 626
(Frahs).) “ ‘The primary purposes of the legislation are to keep
people with mental disorders from entering and reentering the
criminal justice system while protecting public safety, to give
counties discretion in developing and implementing diversion
across a continuum of care settings, and to provide mental health
rehabilitative services.’ ” (People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th
1, 7; see also § 1001.35, subds. (a)–(c).)
Section 1001.36, subdivision (b) provides that a defendant
is eligible for pretrial diversion if two criteria are met. First, the
defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, such as
the one with which defendant was diagnosed, within the last five
years by a qualified mental health expert. (§ 1001.36, subd.
(b)(1).) Second, the “defendant’s mental disorder was a
significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.”
(§ 1001.36, subd. (b)(2).) “If the defendant has been diagnosed
with a mental disorder, the court shall find that the defendant’s
mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the
9
offense unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was
not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the
defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.” (Ibid.)
If a defendant meets these eligibility requirements, the
defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion if four criteria are
satisfied: “(1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert,
the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing,
contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would
respond to mental health treatment. [¶] (2) The defendant
consents to diversion and waives the defendant’s right to a
speedy trial . . . . [¶] (3) The defendant agrees to comply with
treatment as a condition of diversion . . . . [¶] [and]
(4) The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to
public safety, as defined in Section 1170.18, if treated in the
community.” (§ 1001.36, subd. (c)(1)–(4).)
It is undisputed that the first three criteria are satisfied in
this case; only the fourth criterion is at issue. The proper inquiry
for determining whether the fourth criterion is satisfied is
whether there is an unreasonable risk the defendant will commit
a super strike if treated in the community. (§§ 1001.36, subd.
(c)(4); 1170.18, subd. (c).) Super strikes include sexually violent
offenses, child molestation, homicide, attempted homicide,
solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a
peace officer or fire fighter, possession of a weapon of mass
destruction, or a violent felony punishable by life imprisonment
or death. (See § 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iv).)
Section 1001.36 provides the trial court with discretion to
deny mental health diversion even if it finds a defendant meets
the statutory eligibility and suitability criteria. (People v.
Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 53 (Cabalar).) Such
10
discretion is commonly referred to as a court’s residual discretion.
(Ibid.) “Where the court chooses to exercise this residual
discretion to deny diversion, its statement of reasons should
reflect consideration of the underlying purposes of the statute
and explain why diversion would not meet those goals.”
(Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 893
(Sarmiento.)
We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for pretrial
mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. (People v.
Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147.) “A court abuses its
discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by
applying the wrong legal standard [citations], or bases its
decision on express or implied factual findings that are not
supported by substantial evidence [citation].” (People v. Moine
(2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449 (Moine).)
B. Trial Court’s Ruling
At the diversion hearing, defense counsel asserted
diversion was appropriate. She pointed to Dr. Ruiz’s opinion that
“mental health [was] a contributing factor” in the domestic
violence, as evidenced by only a one-month period of violence
while Rodriguez was not taking his medication during a six-
month relationship. Counsel also mentioned that Rodriguez had
familial support, and his family would help him remain
medication compliant.
The prosecutor argued the evidence showed there was “a
risk” Rodriguez would commit a super strike if granted mental
health diversion. He stressed the troubling nature of Rodriguez’s
physical and verbal abuse, along with his controlling behavior
toward the victim, as well as his history of failing to remain
medication compliant.
11
The trial court agreed with the prosecution that Rodriguez
was unsuitable for diversion because Rodriguez was “at risk for
[committing] a super strike.” The court provided no analysis
other than stating that it reviewed the motion, expert medical
testimony, Rodriguez’s “prior history,” and “the underlying facts
of the case.”
C. Analysis
The trial court did not make the finding necessary to deny
Rodriguez diversion. It found that there was a “risk” he would
commit a super strike if released into the community on
diversion. The court, however, was required to find that there
was “an unreasonable risk” of Rodriguez committing a super
strike such as murder. (See § 1001.36, subd. (c)(4), italics added.)
Assuming the trial court applied the correct standard, the trial
court’s finding that Rodriguez is unsuitable for mental health
diversion is unsupported by substantial evidence.
We agree with the Attorney General that the trial court
was entitled to consider the “seriousness” of Rodriguez’s offenses
and we recognize Rodriguez acted in a brutal manner towards
Mia A. But Rodriguez did not commit a super strike. Further, at
the time he committed his crimes, he had no prior criminal
history, and he was only 18 years old. Rodriguez was not a
hardened career criminal with a history of reverting back to
crime after being released from prison. He was a teenager with a
serious mental health problem who was on the verge of his first
conviction. He was the kind of person the Legislature had in
mind when it enacted the current statutory scheme on mental
health diversion.
Moreover, after Rodriguez committed crimes in December
2023, he immediately began consistently taking his medication,
12
which effectively treated the symptoms of his mental health
disorder that led to his dangerous conduct. The relevant inquiry
is not whether Rodriguez was a danger to society when he
committed his crimes in 2023. The relevant inquiry is whether
he posed an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike at the
time of the mental health diversion hearing in May 2025. By
that time, Rodriguez had demonstrated for over a year and a half
that he was able to remain medication compliant, and that when
he took his medication, he was not dangerous to society.
For these reasons, and because the uncontradicted expert
evidence likewise indicates that Rodriguez is not dangerous when
he takes his medication, we see no substantial evidence
supporting the trial court’s finding that Rodriguez was
unsuitable for diversion.3 (See Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118
Cal.App.5th 67, 84, 87 [holding no substantial evidence supported
denying diversion even though there were two instances of
defendant declining treatment and the offense took place while
defendant was being treated pursuant to diversion].) We
3 Rodriguez argues the trial court’s “subsequent decision to
grant probation with conditions substantially similar to those
proposed for diversion—including intensive mental health
treatment, batterer’s program completion, and strict
supervision—demonstrates the arbitrary and contradictory
nature of its public safety finding.” We also note that the trial
court released Rodriguez on his own recognizance in the months
following the crimes and leading up to the diversion hearing. The
Attorney General does not offer any arguments seeking to rebut
Rodriguez’s contention that it was arbitrary to release him into
the community yet find him unsuitable for diversion. Because we
resolve this appeal on other grounds, we do not consider the trial
court’s decision to grant Rodriguez probation.
13
therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying Rodriguez
mental health diversion. (See Moine, supra, 62 Cal.App.5th at p.
449 [a trial court abuses its discretion when it denies diversion in
a manner unsupported by substantial evidence].)
We reject the Attorney General’s argument that the record
shows Rodriguez has a “history of not consistently taking
psychiatric medication.” Contrary to the Attorney General’s
assertion, the record indicates Rodriguez had taken his
medication consistently since the crimes occurred in December
2023. And there is only limited and vague evidence in the record
of Rodriguez’s failure to take prescribed medication before he
committed his crimes. Rodriguez’s failure to consistently take his
medication prior to committing his crimes in December of 2023
does not constitute substantial evidence that he was unsuitable
for mental health diversion in May 2025. (See Vaughn v.
Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 136−137 [holding no
substantial evidence that defendant was unsuitable for diversion
even though defendant had sustained periods of psychotropic
medication non-compliance and resisted talking about his mental
health].)
We also reject the Attorney General’s suggestion that this
court should affirm the trial court’s ruling as a proper exercise of
its residual discretion under the diversion statute. The trial
court never indicated that it was exercising its residual discretion
to deny Rodriguez diversion. Rather, the court denied Rodriguez
diversion on suitability grounds in a manner unsupported by
substantial evidence.
14
DISPOSITION
The September 2, 2025 and May 9, 2025 orders are
vacated. We direct the trial court to enter an order granting
Rodriguez’s motion for mental health diversion unless there is
evidence of changed circumstances that provide a basis for
denying the motion consistent with this opinion. If the court
finds changed circumstances, it shall hold a further hearing on
Rodriguez’s motion for mental health diversion consistent with
this opinion.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TAMZARIAN, J.
We concur:
MORI, Acting P. J.
COGLIATI, J.*
* Judge of the Santa Cruz Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
15