6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/03/03 Morning Session - Mar 03, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/03/03 Morning Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 2h 8m 8 chapters transcribed 10 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural matters are introduced at the start of the hearing?

Unknown 5:36

Good morning, everyone. Please be seated. Welcome to the 6th District Court of Appeal for our calendar this morning. We do have three matters and no panel changes this morning. Nonetheless, so that our live streaming and recording can pick up everyone's appearances, I'm going to invite your appearances and time estimates case by case, as your case is called. So I think we are ready to commence our first case. We do have a remote appearance and we do welcome remote appearances. We appreciate all of those of you in the courtroom, though, who are making the effort to be here as well. And for those of you here. We do have Ms. Coppin appearing in our first matter remotely. Mr. Haney will be able to view her on a screen at council table.

Unknown 6:24

Those of you in the audience will just get the audio here. All right, then. So with that, we will go ahead and take up the matter of people versus Smith. And I'll go ahead, Mr. Haney, since you're here, invite your appearance and time estimate, and then we can continue with appellant's counsel.

Andrew Haney 6:45

Good morning, Your Honors. Deputy Attorney General Andrew Haney on behalf of the people, 15 minutes.

Unknown 6:49

Thank you very much. And for Mr. Smith, good morning.

Sarah Coppin 6:54

Good morning, Your Honor. Sarah Coppin for Mr. Smith, and it will be 15 minutes, 10 in the opening, and five for rebuttal.

Unknown 7:03

All right, that's what we'll count on. So when you're ready, you may go ahead.

Sarah Coppin 7:07

Thank you. Good morning, and may it please the court. Sarah Coppin for Appellant Jonathan David Smith. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied mental health diversion because it applied the wrong legal standard. Section 1001.36 allows denial for public safety reasons only if there is an unreasonable risk the defendant will commit a super strike. And the court here never made that finding, nor put it on this record.

Unknown 7:34

Ms. Coppin?

Sarah Coppin 7:35

Yes.

Unknown 7:35

Good morning. This is Justice Wilson here. And I certainly want to give you an opportunity to make your substantive argument. I have a more procedural question in terms of our disposition here. It appears from your brief, you are requesting that this court should reverse the judgment and remain with instructions for the court to reconsider appellant's suitability for mental health diversion under the correct legal standard. Let's say we were to agree that there was error here or it wasn't particularly clear if the court was applying the correct standard. If we were to reverse the judgment, would that effectively mean that the plea that he entered would be vacated such that the parties would go back to the status quo before the mental health diversion hearing?

Unknown 8:28

Is that your understanding of a reversal by this court?

Sarah Coppin 8:32

that it would vacate the plea which necessarily happened as a result of the denial of mental health diversion.

Unknown 8:40

Okay. And so thank you for making sure I understand where you're coming from with this. My question as a practical matter, if we were to agree and reverse. And he goes back to the status quo. That would mean effectively he is now subject to the original charges pending at the time. And you don't have to tell us what the status has been with Mr. Smith since this case has been pending. But my question is, would it be more preferable not knowing what his current circumstances is to allow for him to, for example, apply for mental health diversion again under current guidance, right? Such that he's, my understanding, he's close to ending probation, assuming there hasn't been any issues since he was placed on probation.

Unknown 9:30

And I just want to be mindful of what, in your view, is going to be the best interest of your client in any disposition we may make here.

Sarah Coppin 9:44

Yes, Your Honor. I'm not sure exactly the question. I do think that he should have the opportunity to start afresh in this process. Obviously, the court, if it then again decides to deny diversion, should take into consideration any time that he has spent in custody or out of custody as a result, you know, under the previous

Unknown 10:06

plea. You would hope that they might, but my understanding is they wouldn't be required to, correct?