Summary
The court considered whether psychological trauma, including trauma resulting from mental illness, constitutes a relevant factor in sentencing decisions under Assembly Bill 124.
Summary
A California court held that judges have no duty to raise mental health diversion on their own and rejected claims of ineffective counsel. However, it ordered resentencing under a new law that favors lower sentences when trauma contributed to the offense.
Summary
A California court ruled that judges are not required to consider mental health diversion unless someone asks for it. The court ordered a new sentencing hearing because a new law may reduce punishment when trauma helped cause the crime.
Summary
A California court said judges do not have to bring up mental health treatment on their own. It sent the case back for a new sentence because a new law may lower punishment when trauma played a part in the crime.