Over six years ago, California lawmakers enacted [1] a broad mental-health diversion law by placing Assembly Bill 1810 inside a 900-page budget bill in 2018.
The legislation created a full diversion structure for defendants with qualifying mental-health diagnoses and passed with little public discussion.
Law enforcement officials now say the system allows defendants charged with serious felonies to avoid entering guilty pleas and instead receive treatment that, once completed, results in their records being cleared.
Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper and San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan outlined their concerns to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Cooper said inmates openly discuss diversion in recorded jail calls, describing it as a strategy to avoid consequences in cases including felony child abuse, attempted murder, residential burglaries and armed carjackings.
View this post on Instagram
Stephan said the same issues are appearing in courtrooms throughout San Diego County.
The state does not monitor who receives diversion, how often participants reenter the system or whether they complete treatment.
Officials from multiple counties said this lack of tracking makes it impossible to determine long-term outcomes or identify repeat offenders.
After AB 1810 passed, lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 215 to address procedural gaps.
Four years later, Senate Bill 1223 widened eligibility further.
The revisions shifted the burden of proof onto prosecutors, lowered the threshold for diagnoses and shortened timelines for misdemeanor diversion.
Defendants now only need to show a mental-health condition “played a significant role” in the offense, a standard prosecutors say covers nearly any diagnosis listed in the DSM-5.
Cooper said the breadth of qualifying conditions has made diversion accessible to defendants with a range of diagnoses, including those unrelated to violent conduct.
He said the statute allows diagnoses from psychiatrists, psychologists and licensed therapists. Some evaluations, he said, are completed after the fact or without an in-person meeting.
One clinician handled roughly 300 cases and “always found” a condition, Cooper said.
Under current law, only a small group of crimes are automatically excluded, such as murder, voluntary manslaughter and certain sex offenses.
Charges including attempted murder, felony child abuse causing serious injury and armed carjackings remain eligible if the defendant can show a qualifying diagnosis.
Cooper cited several cases from Sacramento County.
In one, a one-year-old girl referred to as “Baby A” died from blunt-force trauma.
Her father admitted consuming alcohol while caring for her and was charged with felony child abuse.
He received diversion, and his record was later cleared. In another case, a diversion recipient later stabbed and killed a person.
A third case involved “Baby H,” a 20-month-old boy with severe injuries; both parents applied for diversion.
Cooper said the number of jail calls discussing diversion rose sharply.
“In 2024 for a three-month period, they had 890 conversations that mentioned mental health diversion,” he said.
“This year for a three-month period, it’s 11,000.”
The lack of tracking is one of Cooper’s primary concerns.
“No one in California can tell you how many folks have gotten mental health diversion,” he said.
While the Judicial Council records how many petitions are filed and granted, it does not identify unique individuals or track outcomes.
Stephan said her office is seeing similar issues in San Diego County.
She supports limited diversion for specific populations, including young defendants and veterans, but said the current framework extends far beyond those cases.
“California has really gone too far with the diversion laws,” she said.
She noted the law applies to “serial residential burglaries,” violent carjackings and attempted murder.
Stephan cited a recent case involving a man accused of multiple residential burglaries and thefts who received diversion and later attacked his grandmother after leaving treatment.
Another defendant who carjacked two women and assaulted another inmate also received diversion after citing a methamphetamine disorder.
Stephan said diversion allows defendants to avoid guilty pleas and requires no supervision standards for treatment, leading to inconsistent outcomes.
She added that prosecutors often cannot use past offenses in court because of the way the burden of proof has shifted.
Judges, she said, frequently report that “their hands are tied.”
The law requires courts to grant diversion if certain conditions are met, and Stephan said those conditions are minimal.
Supporters of the program, including former state Sen. Jim Beall and organizations such as Disability Rights California and the ACLU of California, have argued that jail is not suitable for treating mental illness and that diversion can reduce incarceration for defendants with mental-health needs.
Cooper and Stephan said legislative changes could address the issues quickly.
Cooper recommended excluding felony child abuse with great bodily injury and restoring judicial discretion.
Stephan said the law needs a full rewrite and should eliminate eligibility for serious violent crimes.
Both officials said victims are frequently shocked when informed that diversion applies to cases involving significant violence.
Stephan said her office must update victims years after offenses because diversion delays outcomes.
Cooper said victims in his county express disbelief and frustration.
Stephan said voters would be surprised to learn the program never appeared on a statewide ballot.
“When a system no longer cares about victims or the community and only sides one way, it does not [work] anymore,” she said.