People v. Higgins CA4/2
Opinion
Opinion
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Riley Kyle Higgins appeals the order denying his motion
for mental health diversion (the Motion) on two grounds: (1) that the trial court abused
its discretion by allegedly basing its denial on the monetary cost of the proposed
treatment plan and (2) that this impermissible consideration of monetary cost was an
equal protection violation. The People argue that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion because it based its decision on the following permissible factors: the
insufficiency of the treatment that defendant would have received under diversion, a
finding that defendant posed an unreasonable risk to public safety, and the inadequacy of
the supervision that diversion would have provided. In the alternative, they argue that
any reference to cost was harmless error.
We find that the trial court did not consider, let alone base its denial on, the
monetary cost of the proposed mental health treatment plan. It instead relied on
permissible factors to render its decision. We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling.