Rodriguez

People v. Rodriguez

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 2, 2021D078183California2,925 words

Opinion

Opinion

Do, J.

INTRODUCTION

Two years after she pled guilty to felony animal cruelty (Pen. Code, §

597, subd. (a)),1 Danae Marie Rodriguez requested pretrial mental health diversion under section 1001.36. The trial court denied her request as untimely because it was not presented until after her conviction by guilty plea. Section 1001.36, subdivision (c), defines pretrial diversion as postponement of prosecution “at any point in the judicial process . . . until adjudication” (italics added) and the trial court interpreted the term “adjudication” to mean an adjudication of guilt, whether by jury conviction or a plea of guilty. We agree with the trial court’s interpretation and accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 27, 2018, Rodriguez was charged in a felony complaint with one count of animal cruelty (§ 597, subd. (a)) and with personally using a dangerous and deadly weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)). On June 27, 2018, pretrial mental health diversion under section 1001.36 went into effect. (Stats. 2018, ch. 34, § 24.) On July 2, 2018, defense counsel declared a doubt as to Rodriguez’s mental competency and criminal proceedings were…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.