The opinion
Filed 3/5/25 P. v. West CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, C100456
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE009242)
v.
CLIFFORD LEE WEST,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Clifford Lee West pleaded no contest to one count of failing to register
as a sex offender. The trial court sentenced him to 32 months in state prison. Defendant
appeals, arguing the trial court erred in denying his petition for mental health diversion
under Penal Code section 1001.36. (Statutory section citations that follow are to the
Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial
court’s finding that defendant was ineligible for mental health diversion. We affirm the
judgment.
1
FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
A. Current Charges
In 1997, defendant was convicted of the continuous sexual abuse of a child
(§ 288.5). As a result, he is required to register as a sex offender annually and every 30
days while he is a transient pursuant to section 290.012. In April 2022, law enforcement
opened a compliance investigation into defendant after discovering he had not registered
since January 29, 2021, despite being transient during that period.
On October 14, 2022, law enforcement saw a person riding his bicycle after dark,
without a front light. They stopped the cyclist, identified him as defendant, and learned
there was a warrant for his arrest for failing to register as a sex offender. Law
enforcement searched defendant and found .28 grams of methamphetamine on his person.
The People later charged defendant with two counts of failing to register as a sex
offender (§ 290.018, subd. (b)) and one count of unlawfully possessing
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)).
B. Petition for Mental Health Diversion
In November 2023, defendant filed a motion for mental health diversion pursuant
to section 1001.36. In support of the motion, defendant outlined his mental health
history, which includes diagnoses for major depressive disorder with psychotic features,
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and amphetamine use disorder. As a young man,
defendant was hospitalized three times after attempting suicide. The last hospitalization
was in 2013, when defendant was 20 years old.
After he was arrested for the current offenses, defendant was evaluated by
Jeannette Wilson, a clinician with the Department of Behavioral Health. In her
assessment, Wilson opined that defendant was “probably experiencing mental health
symptoms at the time of his arrest.” When defendant is not taking medication for his
mental health, he experiences auditory hallucinations, paranoia, anxiety, and depression.
2
Defendant argued the symptoms of his mental health disorders, combined with his
homelessness, left him in “survival mode” and “unable to help himself.” As a result, he
claimed, he was unable to remember or “prioritiz[e]” registering as a sex offender.
Defendant consented to treatment and believed his mental health disorders would respond
to treatment.
The People opposed defendant’s motion. First, they argued there was no nexus
between defendant’s mental health issues and his failure to register as a sex offender.
According to the arresting officer’s body camera, defendant knew there was probably a
warrant out for his arrest for a “probation violation.” He blamed that violation on a
recent hospitalization after being hit by a car. He also told the arresting officer that he
was out on his bicycle that night looking for his girlfriend. This, the People argued,
“clearly demonstrates that defendant[’]s personal reasons for not registering as a sex
offender were physical rather than mental health issues.”
The People also argued defendant was not a suitable candidate for mental health
diversion because when he failed to register in 2007, defendant was employed, he denied
using drugs, and he denied any mental health issues. At the time, he said he “got ‘caught
up with daily living’ and forgot to register.” The People thus argued, defendant does not
comply with registration requirements even when sober, housed, and employed; so, there
is no nexus between his failure to register and his mental health issues. In addition,
Wilson’s assessment notes indicate defendant was likely to relapse without structure and
he has a poor history of follow-through. The People outlined defendant’s poor history of
follow-through in their argument.
In April 2019, defendant pleaded no contest to failing to register. Two months
later he was, again, out of compliance with his registration requirement and, again
arrested. When he was released from custody, however, defendant failed to appear at his
next hearing and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
3
On January 22, 2020, a violation of probation was filed, and defendant failed to
appear at his arraignment. He was arrested days later. Defendant admitted violating his
probation and was released with directions to report to probation within 48 hours. He
failed to contact probation.
In September 2020, defendant again failed to appear for arraignment on a violation
of probation and another bench warrant was issued. Defendant was arrested on that
warrant in January 2021. Defendant admitted to violating his probation and was released
with directions to report to probation within 48 hours, which he again failed to do.
On March 10, 2021, defendant failed to appear in court and another bench warrant
was issued. Defendant was arrested on that warrant on September 1, 2021, and released
pending trial. Defendant then failed to appear at the next court appearance and the trial
court issued another bench warrant.
Defendant was arrested again on November 15, 2021. He admitted to violating his
probation and was released with orders to contact probation, which he failed to do.
Finally, defendant registered as a sex offender on January 29, 2021, and was soon
out of compliance. After he was arrested on October 14, 2022, he was released pending
trial and again failed to appear in court on December 14, 2022. He was ultimately
arrested and remained in custody on the current charges.
C. Hearing and Plea
The trial court heard defendant’s motion for mental health diversion on
January 16, 2024. Defendant argued his PTSD was the result of being struck by a drunk
driver in 2022. This, he argued, combined with his ongoing depression, put in him a
“state of inaction,” which resulted in his failure to register.
In opposition, the People pointed out that defendant had not registered since
January 2021, more than a year before he was hit by a car in October 2022. Thus, his
PTSD could not have played a role. Moreover, defendant was riding a bicycle in the dark
4
without a light and such conduct belied defendant’s concern that he would again be hit by
a car. The People also argued defendant’s long history of failing to comply with either
probation or his registration requirements rendered him unsuitable for diversion.
The court ruled as follows: “Ultimately, I am denying the request for mental
health diversion. I do find that your client is not suitable. As the main reason – mainly
based on his behavior in the last four years: His failures to appear, his re-arrests, his
violations of probation. Given those circumstances I find that he is unsuitable for mental
health diversion at this time.
“And, also, we do start with nexus as a presumption. I think the facts of this
particular case in regards to how he was contacted by the police, he was out in public,
riding a bike without a light. Kind of goes against the idea that he was scared to be
around people and why he didn’t register for this case for quite some period of time.
So[,] I believe the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence.
“I do not find that he is likely to commit a super strike.”
On January 30, 2024, defendant pleaded no contest to failing to register as a sex
offender and admitted the enhancement allegations. In exchange for his plea, the People
agreed to dismiss the remaining charges and allegations. The trial court sentenced
defendant to the low term of 32 months in state prison. Defendant appeals from the
judgment with a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by finding him both
ineligible and unsuitable for diversion. We conclude substantial evidence supports the
trial court’s finding that defendant was not eligible for diversion because the People
offered clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s mental disorders were not a
significant factor in the commission of his crime.
5
“[S]ection 1001.36, subdivision (b) provides that a defendant is eligible for pretrial
diversion if two criteria are met. First, the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental
disorder, such as the one with which defendant was diagnosed, within the last five years
by a qualified mental health expert. [Citation.] Second, the ‘defendant’s mental disorder
was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.’ [Citation.] ‘If the
defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, the court shall find that the
defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense
unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal
factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.’ ”
(People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795.)
We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for pretrial mental health diversion
for abuse of discretion. (People v. Graham, supra, 102 Cal.App.5th at p. 795.) “A court
abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the
wrong legal standard [citations], or bases its decision on express or implied finding that
are not supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440,
449.)
“The standard of proof known as clear and convincing evidence demands a degree
of certainty greater than that involved with the preponderance standard, but less than
what is required by the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This intermediate
standard ‘requires a finding of high probability.’ ” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020)
9 Cal.5th 989, 998.) “When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and
convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a
whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have
found it highly probable that the fact was true. In conducting its review, the court must
view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below and give
appropriate deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of
6
witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the
evidence.” (Id. at pp. 1011-1012.)
There is no dispute that defendant had a qualifying mental disorder. The trial court
found defendant ineligible for mental health diversion because clear and convincing
evidence established there was no nexus between defendant’s mental health disorder and
his failure to register as a sex offender. We conclude substantial evidence supports that
finding.
This was not defendant’s first time failing to register as a sex offender. He failed
to register in 2007 when, by his own account, he was not using drugs, he was not
suffering from any mental health disorder, he was gainfully employed, and he was
housed. He simply forgot to register. And, despite his claim that the PTSD resulting
from the car accident, combined with his ongoing depression, were the reasons he failed
to register this time, the car accident occurred several months after he was in violation of
his registration requirement. Moreover, as noted by the trial court, defendant’s claimed
PTSD symptoms were the result of being hit by a car while riding his bicycle. He was,
however, riding his bicycle, in the dark, and without a front light when he was found by
the police. Such conduct suggests he was, in fact, not so afraid he would be hit by a car
that he could not comply with his registration requirements.
We thus conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that
defendant was not eligible for mental health diversion.
7
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL, Acting P. J.
We concur:
ROBIE, J.
KRAUSE, J.
8