How People v. Garcia (2025) Affects DUI Mental Health Diversion in California

When it comes to VC 23640(a) mental health diversion DUI California, the 2025 case of People v. Garcia has reshaped how courts across Southern California handle DUI cases that involve additional non-DUI offenses like assault with a deadly weapon or domestic violence.

In this landmark decision, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, ruled that Vehicle Code §23640(a) bars mental health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36 in any case involving a DUI offense — even if the defendant also faces unrelated charges in the same proceeding.

For defendants and defense attorneys across Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Ventura Counties, this case draws a hard line:
If there’s a DUI charge in your case, you cannot qualify for mental health diversion, even for non-DUI counts, if they stem from the same incident or course of conduct.

Understanding Mental Health Diversion Under Penal Code §1001.36

Penal Code §1001.36 was created to give individuals suffering from qualifying mental disorders a chance to receive treatment instead of incarceration.

If successful, diversion allows for dismissal of charges once the defendant completes treatment.

Eligibility Requirements Include:

1. The defendant suffers from a diagnosed mental disorder.
2. The mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.
3. The defendant agrees to treatment.
4. The court believes the defendant will benefit from treatment and does not pose an unreasonable danger to public safety.

However — and this is the critical point emphasized in People v. Garcia — Vehicle Code §23640(a) acts as a statutory wall against diversion in any case involving DUI charges.

The Legislative Purpose Behind VC §23640(a)

Vehicle Code §23640(a) states:

“In any case in which a person is charged with a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, prior to acquittal or conviction, the court shall neither suspend nor stay the proceedings for the purpose of allowing the accused person to attend or participate in any education, training, or treatment program…”

In simple terms, if you’re charged with a DUI, California law prohibits the court from halting your case for treatment diversion.

This includes mental health diversion, veterans’ diversion, and any other pretrial diversion programs. The legislative intent is clear: To prevent DUI offenders — regardless of underlying causes like mental illness or substance dependency — from avoiding criminal prosecution through diversion programs.

Can You Get Mental Health Diversion for DUI in Los Angeles?

Case Summary: People v. Garcia (2025)

In People v. Garcia (B335902), the defendant, Yvette Renee Garcia, faced:

• Assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code §245(a)(1))
• Driving under the influence (VC §23152(a))
• Driving with a BAC of .08% or higher (VC §23152(b))

Garcia, while intoxicated, deliberately rammed another vehicle during a dispute.
Her defense team sought mental health diversion, arguing that her mental illness contributed to the assault and that diversion should still apply to the non-DUI count.

The Court of Appeal disagreed.
It ruled that because all charges arose from a single course of conduct — a DUI incident that included the assault — VC 23640(a) made her ineligible for diversion on any of the counts.

This holding builds upon earlier cases such as:

• Tellez v. Superior Court (2020) — establishing DUI exclusion from diversion.
• Moore v. Superior Court (2020) — reaffirming that DUI statutes override general diversion laws.
• People v. Ortiz (2022) — confirming no diversion under new programs when DUI is involved.
• People v. Espeso (2021) — applying DUI exclusion to misdemeanor-level diversions.

How VC 23640(a) Impacts DUI Defense Strategy

The phrase “in any case” in VC §23640(a) was central to the court’s analysis.

The defense argued that Garcia’s assault charge was separate from her DUI charges and should qualify for diversion. However, the court emphasized that a “case” is defined as the entire proceeding, not individual counts.

That means:

• If one of the charges in your case is a DUI,
• And that DUI arose from the same incident or same course of conduct,
• Then you are ineligible for mental health diversion on any count in that case.

This interpretation aligns with the policy of keeping DUI cases outside California’s growing diversion programs.

Example Application in Southern California:

If a driver in Los Angeles County is arrested after:

• Driving under the influence, and
• Striking another driver intentionally or accidentally,

Then both the DUI charge and any assault or reckless driving charge will be considered part of one “case.”
Under People v. Garcia, the defendant cannot seek mental health diversion for either offense.

Understanding People v. Garcia (2025) and VC §23640(a)

The appellate opinion in People v. Garcia (2025) serves as one of the clearest and most consequential interpretations of VC 23640(a) in California history. The decision not only reinforces the long-standing legislative intent to exclude DUI cases from diversion programs but also closes the door on attempts to “split” cases where both DUI and non-DUI offenses arise from the same incident.

Let’s unpack the reasoning — and the broader implications — for defendants, attorneys, and trial courts across Southern California.

1. The Legal Issue Before the Court

The question before the Court of Appeal was straightforward:

“Is a defendant eligible for mental health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36 when the case involves both DUI and non-DUI charges arising from a single course of conduct?”

Garcia argued that Vehicle Code §23640(a) should only apply to her DUI counts, not to her separate assault with a deadly weapon charge.
Her defense team claimed that the diversion statute (PC §1001.36) is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed to allow mental health treatment for crimes not directly related to DUI conduct.

However, the appellate court held that this interpretation conflicted with both the plain language and legislative intent of VC §23640(a).

2. Statutory Language: “In Any Case” Is Comprehensive

The statute’s critical phrase — “In any case in which a person is charged with a violation of Section 23152 or 23153…” — was the court’s focus.

The court interpreted “any case” to mean the entire criminal proceeding, not individual counts.
Thus, if a defendant faces a DUI charge under VC §23152 or VC §23153, that entire case is excluded from diversion eligibility.

Supporting Case Law:

• Tellez v. Superior Court (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 439 — held that DUI defendants are categorically ineligible for mental health diversion.
• Moore v. Superior Court (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 561 — confirmed that VC §23640’s bar extends to newly created diversion statutes.
• People v. Ortiz (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 851 — reiterated that the legislative purpose of VC §23640(a) is to maintain DUI prosecution integrity.
• People v. Espeso (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1 — rejected attempts to apply misdemeanor diversion to DUI cases.
• People v. Saxton (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 428 — clarified that probation determinations are based on the “case as a whole,” echoing the same logic used in Garcia.

These precedents built a consistent judicial framework that the Garcia court followed precisely.

3. Single Course of Conduct = Single Case

A key factor in People v. Garcia was the “single course of conduct” doctrine.

The court emphasized that when multiple offenses — DUI, assault, hit and run, etc. — stem from the same event, they are considered part of the same “case” for diversion purposes.

This means:

• You cannot isolate one count from another to seek diversion.
• If all the conduct is interwoven (for example, assaulting another driver while intoxicated), the entire proceeding falls under the DUI exclusion rule.

Court’s Exact Reasoning (Summarized):

“Both in ordinary usage and in California criminal law, the term ‘case’ refers to a single proceeding against a defendant, which may include one or more charges.”

Therefore, Garcia’s assault charge, even though non-DUI, could not be diverted because it occurred during and as part of her DUI-related behavior.

4. Equal Protection and Constitutional Claims Rejected

Garcia’s defense also raised an Equal Protection argument under the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming it was unfair to deny diversion for someone like her when another defendant — charged with a DUI and assault in separate cases — might qualify for diversion on the non-DUI count.

The court dismissed this argument.

Citing People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, the justices explained that as long as there is a rational basis for the legislative classification, Equal Protection is not violated. The Legislature’s rationale — preventing DUI offenders from delaying or avoiding prosecution — was both rational and consistent with California’s public safety policy.

The opinion emphasized:

“The Legislature could have rationally determined that to achieve its purpose of barring DUI offenders from diversion, it was necessary to treat offenses committed in conjunction with a DUI in the same way.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter if the reasoning isn’t elegant — only that it’s rational under the law.

5. The Rule of Lenity Argument Also Fails

Garcia’s counsel attempted a rule of lenity argument, asserting that any ambiguity in VC §23640(a) should be resolved in the defendant’s favor.

The appellate panel rejected this claim, finding no ambiguity. The court held that the statute’s language is plain and unmistakable: diversion is barred “in any case” where a DUI charge exists.

This leaves no interpretive wiggle room for defense attorneys attempting to carve out exceptions.

6. The Practical Consequences for California Defendants

The Garcia ruling has far-reaching practical consequences for defendants across Southern California:

A. Defendants with Mixed Charges

If a defendant faces DUI and non-DUI charges arising from the same event — such as:

• DUI + Vehicular Assault
• DUI + Domestic Violence
• DUI + Child Endangerment
• DUI + Reckless Evading

— then mental health diversion is categorically unavailable.

B. Separate Cases Still May Qualify

However, if the DUI and non-DUI offenses occur in separate incidents and are charged separately, diversion may still be possible for the non-DUI case.
For instance:

If a defendant has a DUI charge in Pasadena (VC 23152) and a week later commits a vandalism offense in Pomona (PC 594), the vandalism case could still qualify for mental health diversion because it’s a separate “case.”

This distinction is vital for defense lawyers strategizing plea negotiations or case severance motions.

7. Southern California Defense Practice: Key Strategy Points

In the wake of People v. Garcia (2025), defense attorneys in Los Angeles County, Riverside County, Orange County, and beyond must adjust their approach:

• Early Case Analysis: Determine whether all alleged conduct occurred in a single “course of conduct.” If so, diversion arguments are likely futile.
• Case Severance Motions: Where possible, request that non-DUI counts be charged or prosecuted separately.
• Mental Health Mitigation at Sentencing: Even if diversion is off the table, present strong mitigation evidence under Penal Code §1170(b)(6) to reduce custody exposure.
• Alternative Sentencing Programs: Explore community-based treatment options, probationary terms, or collaborative courts that consider mental health conditions outside diversion programs.

8. Why the Court’s Decision Matters for Public Policy

At its core, People v. Garcia underscores California’s zero-tolerance policy for DUIs — even when mental illness or substance abuse is involved.

The court reaffirmed that public safety and accountability remain paramount. Allowing diversion in DUI cases could create unequal treatment and undermine the deterrent purpose of DUI laws.

However, the ruling also highlights a growing policy tension:

• California wants to expand treatment options for mentally ill offenders (through PC §1001.36),
• Yet DUI law remains rigid and exclusionary under VC §23640(a).

This tension may prompt future legislative reform efforts, but as of now, the rule is clear:
If your case involves a DUI, mental health diversion is not an option — regardless of other charges.

What To Do If You’re Denied Diversion in California

Being denied mental health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36 or Vehicle Code §23640(a) doesn’t mean your case is over — but it does mean your defense strategy needs to pivot fast. In California DUI and criminal cases, what you do immediately after a diversion denial can have a lasting impact on your record, sentencing, and ability to seek treatment instead of incarceration.

1. File a Motion for Reconsideration or Record Your Objection

If the court misapplied the law or overlooked qualifying mental health evidence, your attorney can file a motion for reconsideration or ensure your objection is preserved for appeal. Documenting the denial is critical for future review by a higher court, especially if case law evolves.

2. Shift Focus to Sentencing Mitigation Under PC §1170(b)(6)

Even without diversion, California’s sentencing reform laws allow judges to consider mental health as a mitigating factor. Under Penal Code §1170(b)(6), courts can reduce custody time or impose probation when a mental disorder significantly contributed to the offense. A strong psychiatric report or treatment record can help your lawyer secure a reduced sentence.

3. Explore Mental Health or Collaborative Courts

Several counties — including Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange — operate specialized mental health courts and collaborative justice programs. While technically separate from §1001.36 diversion, these courts still emphasize treatment, therapy, and accountability rather than incarceration. Your defense attorney can petition to transfer your case to one of these divisions.

4. Negotiate Alternative Pleas or Deferred Sentencing

A creative defense strategy can sometimes achieve diversion-like outcomes without invoking the statute. Your attorney may negotiate a plea to a lesser offense (for example, reckless driving instead of DUI) or request deferred entry of judgment conditions that include counseling or rehabilitation — keeping your record cleaner and your options open.

5. Begin Voluntary Treatment Immediately

Courts and prosecutors take note of proactive rehabilitation. Enrolling in therapy, substance abuse programs, or psychiatric treatment before sentencing shows responsibility and remorse. Judges often view early engagement as a compelling reason to grant probation or suspended sentences.

6. Consider a Post-Conviction Petition or Appeal

If your diversion request was denied in error, your attorney may file a writ of mandate or appeal. While appellate relief is limited under People v. Garcia (2025), an appeal can preserve your rights and position you for future relief if the Legislature modifies VC §23640(a) or expands diversion eligibility.

Take Action Now — Protect Your Rights and Your Future

If your request for mental health diversion or DUI diversion was denied, don’t wait. Early legal intervention is critical to secure alternative sentencing and preserve your treatment options.
Call Power Trial Lawyers at (888) 808-2179 or contact us online for a free consultation. We represent clients throughout Los Angeles, Orange County, and across Southern California in complex criminal and DUI cases involving mental health defenses.

Practical Implications for Southern California Defendants and Attorneys

The People v. Garcia (2025) decision carries immense weight for Southern California criminal courts — especially in Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, Ventura, and San Bernardino Counties. These are regions where DUI-related offenses frequently overlap with assault, domestic violence, or property damage cases.

Under this new interpretation, VC 23640(a) mental health diversion DUI California law now firmly prohibits mental health diversion in any combined DUI case, no matter how sympathetic the defendant’s mental health background might be.

1. How Southern California Courts Will Apply People v. Garcia

Since Garcia was certified for publication in 2025, it is binding precedent throughout California. This means every trial court — from Van Nuys to Riverside Hall of Justice — must follow it when applying Penal Code §1001.36 and Vehicle Code §23640(a).

Example Application:

If a defendant in Riverside County is arrested for:

• DUI (VC §23152(a))
• Hit-and-run causing injury (VC §20001)

— and the evidence shows both charges arose from the same crash, the entire case is barred from diversion. The defense cannot isolate the hit-and-run count and request mental health diversion only for that charge.

This precedent standardizes practice across counties and closes the loophole that once allowed judges to exercise discretion differently.

2. The “Single Course of Conduct” Test in Action

One of the most important lessons from Garcia is understanding how courts determine whether multiple charges arise from the same course of conduct.

Courts Look At:

• Timing and location of the conduct;
• Whether the defendant’s acts were continuous or interdependent;
• Whether the offenses were motivated by a single intent or objective;
• Whether separating the acts would distort the factual reality of the case.

In Garcia’s situation, her DUI and assault were inseparable — both occurred in one continuous episode involving her intoxicated use of a vehicle to intentionally ram another driver.

If these factors are present, the entire case is tainted by the DUI charge, making diversion impossible under VC §23640(a).

3. Case Severance as a Defense Strategy

For defense attorneys practicing in Southern California, one critical takeaway is to examine early opportunities to separate charges.

If the prosecution can be persuaded (or ordered by the court) to file the non-DUI counts in a separate case, those offenses may remain eligible for Penal Code §1001.36 mental health diversion.

Strategic Motion Example:

A defense lawyer might argue that:

• The DUI occurred on one date in Los Angeles,
• But the unrelated assault occurred a week later in Pasadena.

If so, these are not part of a single course of conduct, and the assault case should still be eligible for mental health diversion. This argument must be raised early in the pretrial phase to prevent consolidation under the “same case” rule established by Garcia.

4. Implications for Clients with Documented Mental Illness

Many defendants charged under VC 23152 also have co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. Before People v. Garcia (2025), defense attorneys could sometimes argue that mental illness justified diversion even in DUI-related cases.

Now, under the firm reading of VC 23640(a) mental health diversion DUI California, that pathway is closed — but all is not lost.

Alternative Defense Approaches:

• Mitigation at Sentencing: Use psychiatric evaluations to argue for probation under PC §1170(b)(6) or reduced custody time.
• Collaborative or Mental Health Courts: Some Southern California counties have treatment-oriented courts outside the formal diversion system.
• Therapeutic Probation Terms: Courts may still impose treatment conditions as part of probation even if diversion isn’t available.

This is where skilled legal advocacy makes the difference between jail time and treatment-based outcomes.

5. Policy Debate: The Tension Between Rehabilitation and Public Safety

The Garcia decision highlights a deep policy debate in California law:
Can we reconcile public safety goals in DUI law with the rehabilitative intent behind diversion statutes?

Legislative Context:

• Penal Code §1001.36 was enacted to divert defendants with mental illness into treatment rather than incarceration.
• Vehicle Code §23640(a), however, was designed to ensure strict DUI enforcement and public deterrence.

By reaffirming the primacy of VC 23640(a), the Garcia court effectively decided that DUI cases occupy a special category — one immune to the broader push toward mental health treatment.

Critics argue this creates inconsistency: defendants with mental illness can obtain diversion for serious felonies like burglary or assault, but not for a misdemeanor DUI.

Nonetheless, until the Legislature amends §23640(a), courts are bound by this interpretation.

FAQ — VC 23640(a) Mental Health Diversion DUI California

What People v. Garcia (2025) Means for You

The People v. Garcia decision cemented one clear rule:
If your case involves a DUI, mental health diversion is not an option under VC 23640(a) — no matter how compelling your mental health story may be.

However, the case also provides guidance for attorneys and clients alike:

• Separate incidents may still qualify for diversion.
• Mitigation and mental health treatment can still play a major role in sentencing.
• Early legal intervention can make the difference between a harsh outcome and a manageable resolution.

The bottom line?
This decision doesn’t erase compassion from the courtroom — it just requires smarter advocacy and deeper knowledge of how to present mental health within California’s DUI framework.

Final Call to Action: Get Help with Your DUI or Mental Health Case Today

If you or a loved one were charged with DUI and denied diversion under VC 23640(a), don’t lose hope. Our Southern California DUI defense attorneys understand how to navigate this complex area of law. We’ve helped clients secure treatment, reduce charges, and rebuild their lives even after a diversion denial.

Call us today for a free confidential consultation at 888-808-2179 or visit California Courts Opinion – People v. Garcia (2025) to read the official decision that’s shaping DUI law statewide.