Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
OtherLegal Digest

Mental Health Pretrial Diversion

Kathryn Schrantz and Ashley Murray
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online September 2021, 49 (3) 449-451; DOI: https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.210084L4-21
Kathryn Schrantz
Fellow in Forensic Psychology
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ashley Murray
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • pretrial diversion program
  • mental disorder
  • decriminalization of mental illness

A Retroactive Application of a Mental Health Pretrial Diversion Program Is Allowed

In People v. Frahs, 466 P.3d 844 (Cal. 2020), the Supreme Court of California considered whether a statute creating a mental health pretrial diversion program could be applied retroactively. The court ruled the statute can be applied retroactively because it could have an ameliorative effect, there was no “savings clause” (exemption from the statute's operation), the California legislature did not signify an intent for the statute to be prospective only, and the judgment in the case was not final at the time the statute was enacted. The court ruled a conditional remand was appropriate to determine eligibility for the diversion program.

Facts of the Case

In March 2016, Eric Frahs was throwing rocks at vehicles in front of a store he later entered, where he attempted to steal beverages and then punched the store owner. He was subsequently charged with two counts of second-degree robbery and one count of throwing a substance at a motor vehicle with intent to cause injury.

At trial, Mr. Frahs introduced testimony regarding his mental health; he testified that he experienced hallucinations and delusions for years and had been hospitalized several times. He testified that he thought he saw an angel fly by on a horse and talk to him prior to his entering the store. A forensic psychologist testified that Mr. Frahs had a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and opined that his behavior at the time of the offense was related to his mental illness. Despite this, Mr. Frahs was convicted on the two charges of second-degree robbery and throwing a substance at a vehicle without intent to cause injury, and he was sentenced to nine years of incarceration.

While Mr. Frahs' appeal was pending, California enacted Penal Code § 1001.36 (2018), a statute that allows for pretrial diversion of individuals with certain mental illnesses. The California Court of Appeal (People v. Frahs, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 483 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)) ruled that the statute applied retroactively to cases that fit the criteria, if the judgments were not final. The court ordered a conditional remand for Mr. Frahs.

Ruling and Reasoning

The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment of the lower court, ruling the statute could be applied retroactively and Mr. Frahs was entitled to an eligibility hearing to determine whether such diversion was appropriate. The court noted the purposes of the statute included diverting individuals with mental disorders to treatment to reduce their involvement in the criminal justice system; to allow local courts discretion and flexibility in diversion; and to provide treatment and support for individuals with mental illness. The statute allows for trial courts to use their discretion in granting pretrial diversion if the following are met: (1) the defendant suffers from a qualifying mental disorder; (2) the disorder played a significant role in the commission of the charged offense; (3) the defendant's symptoms will respond to mental health treatment; (4) the defendant consents to diversion and waives his or her speedy trial right; (5) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment; and (6) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community (Frahs, p 847).

The court relied on its prior decision in In re Estrada, 408 P.2d. 948 (Cal. 1965), which held that amendatory statutes (e.g., statutes that reduce punishment) are intended to apply retroactively. The court interpreted the legislative intent in enacting such statutes was for the reduced penalty to apply to every case “to which it constitutionally could apply” (Frahs, p 848, citing Estrada, p 951), including cases in which judgments were not final. More recently, the court ruled in People v. Superior Court (Lara), 410 P.3d. 22 (Cal. 2018) that the Estrada rule applied to an amendatory statute that “ameliorated the punishment for a class of persons” (Frahs, p 849, citing Lara, p 27; emphasis in original). In Lara, the court ruled a statute prohibiting prosecutors from charging juveniles in adult court and giving juvenile courts the discretion to transfer juveniles to adult courts could be applied retroactively because it could potentially reduce punishment.

Relying upon both Estrada and Lara, the court reasoned that the new statute could offer a “potentially ameliorative benefit for a class of individuals—namely, criminal defendants who suffer from a qualifying mental disorder” (Frahs, p 850). The diversion program would allow for individuals with mental illness to receive treatment and, if completed successfully, have their criminal charges dismissed instead of serving a sentence in prison. Accordingly, the court ruled the statute was ameliorative in nature. Further, they concluded that the California legislature did not include any language indicating it intended the statute to be applied only proactively. Although the statute contained language indicating the diversion could be applied “at any point in the judicial process … until adjudication” (Cal. Penal Code § 1001.36 (c) (2018)) and referencing the program as “pretrial,” the court reasoned this language only conveyed how the legislature intended the statute to be enacted during the ordinary trial process. The court rejected the arguments raised by the state that the legislature's intent was for it to be applied only prospectively.

The court then considered the remedy for Mr. Frahs in particular. In Lara, the court endorsed a limited remand procedure in which appellate courts could conditionally reverse a conviction and sentence and order the trial court to conduct a new hearing, which, in Lara, was a juvenile transfer hearing. In Frahs, the California Court of Appeal followed such a procedure, conditionally reversing Mr. Frahs' conviction and sentence and instructing the trial court to determine whether Mr. Frahs met eligibility for the diversion program, noting the record indicated Mr. Frahs appeared to have a mental disorder and a psychologist had testified that his actions at the time of the offense were related to symptoms of his mental disorder. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the appeals court and conditionally reversed Mr. Frahs' conviction and sentence. The court remanded the case to the appeals court with instructions to remand it to the trial court to conduct an eligibility hearing considering the relevant factors named by statute.

Discussion

Across the country, many jurisdictions utilize pretrial diversion programs for a variety of individuals, including those with mental illness, substance use, or first-time offenders (National Association of Pretrial Services (NAPSA): Pretrial diversion in the 21st century: a national survey of pretrial diversion programs and practices. NAPSA Monograph, 2009, available at: https://netforumpro.com/public/temp/ClientImages/NAPSA/18262ec2-a77b-410c-ad9b-c6e8f74ddd5b.pdf). Pretrial diversion programs aim to serve several important goals, including reduce recidivism, provide specialized treatment rather than punishment to those who need it, and reduce court costs (Hiday VA, Ray B, Wales H: Longer-term impacts of mental health courts: recidivism two years after exit. Psychiatric Services 67:378–83, 2016; Edwards ER, Sissoko DRG, Abrams D, et al: Connecting mental health court participants with services: Process, challenges, and recommendations. Psychol Pub Pol'y & L 26:463–75, 2020). In the United States, individuals with mental illness are overrepresented in prisons and jails, indicating a high prevalence of mental illness within our penal system. Pretrial diversion programs, such as the one discussed in People v. Frahs, are a potential avenue to reduce the criminalization of mental illness, reduce the prevalence of mental illness in our correctional environments, and provide mental health treatment to individuals in need.

In Frahs, the Supreme Court of California recognized the potential value of a mental health pretrial diversion program, and, through its analysis, enabled a program to be applied broadly to capture as many individuals as could benefit by allowing its application at any point during the legal process prior to final judgment. The court makes reference at several points to the beneficial nature of such a program, discussing how the purpose of the program is to reduce the involvement of individuals with mental illness with the criminal justice system, provide specialized mental health treatment to individuals in need of it, and prevent individuals with mental illness from unjustly accruing criminal convictions and sentences. The court further recognized the financial benefit a mental health pretrial diversion program may have for the state, citing that community mental health treatment costs significantly less than jailing someone (Frahs, p 853). The court's ruling in this case underscores the potential benefit of mental health pretrial diversion programs and, importantly, allows such a program to apply in the broadest sense possible, capturing many individuals with mental illness who have been involved in the criminal justice system secondary to their psychiatric symptoms. In doing so, the Supreme Court of California recognized the dire need for improved treatment of persons with mental illness within the criminal justice system.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.

  • © 2021 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 49 (3)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 49, Issue 3
1 Sep 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mental Health Pretrial Diversion
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Mental Health Pretrial Diversion
Kathryn Schrantz, Ashley Murray
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Sep 2021, 49 (3) 449-451; DOI: 10.29158/JAAPL.210084L4-21

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Mental Health Pretrial Diversion
Kathryn Schrantz, Ashley Murray
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Sep 2021, 49 (3) 449-451; DOI: 10.29158/JAAPL.210084L4-21
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • A Retroactive Application of a Mental Health Pretrial Diversion Program Is Allowed
    • Footnotes
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Addressing Mental States in Expert Witness Testimony
  • Excessive Force in Involuntary Mental Health Examination
  • Medical Malpractice and Ordinary Negligence Cases Share Same Standard for Causation
Show more LEGAL DIGEST

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • pretrial diversion program
  • mental disorder
  • decriminalization of mental illness

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law