California Lawmakers Push for Stricter Mental Health Diversion Limits

A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in California is advocating for tighter rules surrounding the state’s mental health diversion program. They argue that, despite its good intentions, the program has inadvertently provided offenders with a way to evade serious consequences, almost like a “get-out-of-jail-free card.”

The proposed Senate Bill 1373, introduced by State Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), aims to narrow the parameters set by Assembly Bill 1810, which initiated these diversions in 2018.

“This program started off with the right intentions—to keep low-level offenders out of jail,” Grove mentioned at a news conference on Tuesday. “But the safeguards are inadequate, and, honestly, it’s become an easy way for people to escape accountability.”

Under AB 1810, defendants diagnosed with mental illnesses can join diversion programs instead of facing standard prosecution. Successful completion of these programs can lead to charges being dismissed and arrest records sealed.

However, Grove revealed that some criminal suspects have been overheard in phone calls discussing how to use this law to evade jail time.

“People who commit crimes are reoffending in the community,” Grove highlighted. “Victims, on the other hand, are often left feeling neglected and without justice.”

SB 1373 would introduce stricter eligibility criteria for the mental health diversion program, requiring that a defendant’s mental disorder be diagnosed within five years prior to the charges being filed.

Furthermore, it would expand the list of ineligible crimes, including serious offenses like attempted murder and human trafficking. It would also bar diversion for anyone with two prior felony convictions or a history of violent crimes under California’s three-strike law.

Grove was joined by law enforcement officials and other legislators, including Democratic Rep. Maggie Crell, herself a former district attorney. Crell pointed out specific instances that illustrate the unexpected consequences of AB 1810.

She noted that almost half of Sacramento’s criminal cases currently involve diversion claims, and there remains a critical shortage of treatment facilities for those genuinely in need of help.

“We believe in the effectiveness of mental health diversions for some defendants,” Krell said. “Nonetheless, the system is overwhelmed, and there are certain offenses that deserve more serious consideration.”

Sen. Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) referenced a recent murder to underline the need for reform. In Sacramento County, Jordan Murray, who had been granted a mental health diversion, allegedly killed Carlos Romero after previously being arrested for theft and assault.

Media reports and court documentation reveal that this diversion occurred before Murray committed his violent act. “This wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment incident; there was clear intent,” Niello stated. “It’s a stark reminder of the unintentional fallout from this legislation.”

In a similar vein, shortly after receiving immunity from prosecution under the Mental Health Diversion Act, Napa resident Ramiro Ochoa Mendoza was implicated in a grave murder, which raised alarms about the system’s reliability concerning public safety.

Additionally, former Kern County Supervisor Zach Scribner avoided facing the legal system last year after being charged with felony child abuse, instead being directed into mental health diversion programs.

“He faced no real consequences—he didn’t even have to plead guilty or serve any jail time,” Grove shared. “After some community service, his record will be wiped clean, allowing him to continue working at the school.” Her bill has garnered support from Democratic Sen. Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park).

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins told reporters that she is not currently endorsing SB 1373 as it undergoes revisions, but supports the broader goal of reforming the mental health diversion laws.

“We have seen serious crimes slip through the cracks, allowing dangerous individuals back onto the streets,” Jenkins commented. “While removing certain offenses from eligibility is a step forward, we need a more comprehensive overhaul to ensure public safety.”