California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Landrine is that a trial court may not find satisfactory performance in mental health diversion unless the defendant substantially complies with the requirements imposed on diversion, under circumstances where the defendant commits dozens of new crimes while in the diversion program despite express warnings that any new crimes would result in termination.

Appeal from order dismissing charges in Superior Court, Santa Clara County.

Defendant Respondent was Keena Teloca Landrine — the defendant who was placed in mental health diversion but committed numerous crimes while in the program.

Plaintiff Appellant was The People — the prosecution seeking to reinstate charges after the trial court found satisfactory performance despite multiple violations.

The suit sounded in mental health diversion proceedings under Penal Code section 1001.36.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Landrine committed a crime spree entering businesses, hospitals, health care facilities, and schools under false pretenses to steal personal property from employees and residents. She was placed in mental health diversion in September 2021 with express requirements to avoid drug relapse, continue treatment, and not commit new crimes. While on diversion, Landrine committed dozens of additional offenses following the same pattern, including entering elder care facilities posing as a nurse, infiltrating schools claiming to be a substitute teacher, and stealing from employees and residents.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court dismissed the original charges, ruling that Landrine had successfully completed mental health diversion because she made "amazing progress" while in custody despite committing numerous crimes while on diversion.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding satisfactory performance in mental health diversion despite the defendant's repeated violations of diversion requirements.

The Appellate Court held that the trial court abused its discretion because Penal Code section 1001.36 requires substantial compliance with diversion requirements for a finding of satisfactory performance, and committing dozens of crimes while expressly prohibited from doing so cannot constitute substantial compliance regardless of progress made in custody.

The case is inapplicable when a defendant in mental health diversion has actually substantially complied with the requirements imposed, or when violations are minor or infrequent rather than constituting dozens of serious offenses in the same pattern as the original crimes.

The case leaves open whether exceptional progress in treatment could overcome less egregious violations of diversion requirements, and what specific factors courts may consider when violations are not as extensive and repetitive as those in this case.