Press releases are posted on Independent.com as a free community service.
SANTA BARBARA, Calif., March 16, 2026 – The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office is joining the California District Attorneys Association in urging the California Legislature to pass Assembly Bill 46, common-sense legislation aimed at strengthening California’s mental health diversion (MHD) law.
AB 46, sponsored by the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office and co-sponsored by district attorneys across the state, including the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office, would close significant legal loopholes in California’s mental health diversion statute. The bill restores judicial discretion and ensures diversion programs can provide treatment while still protecting public safety.
Mental health diversion, created under Penal Code §1001.36, was intended to allow individuals suffering from serious mental health conditions to receive treatment instead of incarceration when appropriate. However, recent court rulings and statutory limitations have significantly restricted judges’ ability to deny diversion — even in serious and violent cases — limiting courts’ ability to determine whether diversion is truly appropriate.
Across California, there have been tragic examples in which individuals granted diversion later committed violent crimes, including murder, attempted murder, sexual assault, and domestic violence. Santa Barbara County has experienced similar cases.
In one local case, a defendant was placed on mental health diversion after brutally assaulting a 65-year-old developmentally disabled man who was sitting on his walker waiting to cross the street. After completing diversion, the same defendant later encountered the victim again, ran toward him, struck him in the face with a rock, and stabbed him in the neck. The victim survived but suffered life-threatening injuries.
In addition to limiting judicial discretion, the current law allows defendants charged with serious and violent offenses to qualify for mental health diversion. The statute is written broadly, and qualifying conditions can include a wide range of mental health issues, including things such as depression or alcoholism. Once a defendant presents evidence of a qualifying condition, diversion is often presumed, leaving courts with limited ability to filter out cases where the underlying conduct involves significant violence or risk to public safety.
As a result, individuals charged with serious crimes are increasingly being granted diversion despite the severity of the offense or concerns raised by victims, prosecutors, or mental health experts.
One such example involves People v. Nolberto Reyes Hernandez, who was charged with kidnapping for robbery and false imprisonment after entering Community West Bank on Betteravia Road in Santa Maria. Hernandez allegedly ordered three bank employees to their knees, tied their hands behind their backs, and fled with cash. Law enforcement later located Hernandez through a coordinated investigation involving the Santa Maria Police Department, the FBI, and the Los Angeles Police Department.
Despite the serious nature of the crime and objections from the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office, the court granted the defendant’s request for mental health diversion and ordered his release from custody while he participates in treatment.
The prosecution’s psychological expert concluded the defendant was “not eligible and not suitable” for diversion. Two of the bank employees also urged the court to deny diversion, describing the lasting trauma the robbery continues to cause.
“The crime the defendant committed was not only a robbery but also an act of terror that left me and my colleagues traumatized,” one employee told the court. “He forcibly entered our workplace — a place where we felt safe — and subjected us to unimaginable fear.”
She described the defendant’s aggression and lack of regard for the victims’ lives and well-being, explaining that the experience continues to affect her daily life.
“Since that day, I have struggled to step foot near any bank, haunted by the memory of his violent behavior,” she said. “The fear of him returning to harm us keeps me constantly on edge.”
Another employee told the court the robbery will affect the victims for the rest of their lives.
“He took away my sense of security. He put me in a position to be responsible for other people’s lives,” she wrote in a statement. “He had this planned because he brought rope with him to tie us up. If you just see the knife he had, this is very unfair.”
District Attorney John T. Savrnoch emphasized that diversion can be an important tool when used appropriately.
“Mental health diversion can be a valuable option for individuals whose criminal conduct is directly driven by untreated mental illness and who can safely receive treatment in the community,” Savrnoch said. “However, the current law has limited judges’ ability to consider public safety when making these decisions. Assembly Bill 46 restores the common-sense discretion judges need to ensure diversion programs provide treatment while still protecting victims and the community.”
Under current law, once a defendant meets certain statutory criteria, judges have very limited discretion to deny diversion. Courts have even been forced to approve diversion in cases where no clear treatment plan exists, community safety is at risk, or where defendants havefailed prior treatment efforts – due to how the statute is written and interpreted by appellate courts.
Further, once a defendant completes Mental Health Diversion, the crime is removed from the defendant’s criminal history, removing accountability for dangerous crimes as if the crime was never committed. This puts victims, law enforcement and communities at risk if the program is not implemented properly.
AB 46 addresses these concerns by allowing courts to consider whether a defendant poses a substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person and whether the proposed treatment plan is clinically appropriate to address the mental health condition that contributed to the crime.
AB 46 will be heard in the Senate Public Safety Committee on March 17. Members of the public can watch the hearing live at 8:30 a.m. at: https://spsf.senate.ca.gov/committeehome
Read the CDAA letter of support here. For more information about the mental health diversion loophole visit http://www.placer.ca.gov/MHD
