Segura v. Superior Court of Orange County (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 2, 2025, No. G065079) 2025 WL 2505320, at *1–2
Summary: Military diversion for misdemeanors
“A defendant charged with a misdemeanor is eligible for diversion if both of the following apply: (1) The defendant was, or currently is, a member of the United States military. (2)(A) The defendant may be suffering from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of their military service.” (Pen. Code, § 1001.80, subd. (b).)
As of January 1, 2025, a defendant charged with a felony may also be eligible for military diversion, but there is an additional requirement that “the defendant’s condition was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.” (§ 1001.80 (c)(2)(A), added by Stats. 2024, ch. 924, § 1.)
Misdemeanor DUI charges
Segura was charged with four misdemeanor crimes arising from one incident of driving under the influence (DUI). Segura filed a section 1001.80 motion requesting military diversion, claiming he was a veteran, and that he had an alcohol abuse disorder as a result of his military service. The trial court denied Segura’s motion partly because “there is just no nexus that this incident or his alcohol abuse is related to the military.”
Segura filed a petition for a writ of mandate in this court challenging the trial court’s ruling, and the Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause.
To be eligible for military diversion when charged with a felony, the defendant has the burden to show a relationship between the qualifying condition and the commission of the crime. However, when charged with a misdemeanor, the defendant has no burden to show such a relationship.
Segura was charged with four misdemeanors. The trial court erred by requiring Segura to show a relationship (a “nexus”) between his qualifying condition (“alcohol abuse”) and the commission of the offenses (“the incident”). It is unclear what burden of proof the trial court applied. Therefore, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new hearing.
To be eligible for military diversion, a person has the burden to show that he or she “was, or currently is, a member of the United States military.” (§ 1001.80 (b)(1) & (c)(1), italics added.) Conversely, the person only has the burden to show that he or she “may be suffering from [a qualifying condition] as a result of their military service.” (§ 1001.80 (b)(2)(A) & (c)(2)(A).)
The Legislature’s choice of the word “may” was intentional and means a defendant has the burden to show a reasonable possibility that he or she is suffering from a qualifying condition as a result of their military service.
On remand, the trial court is directed to apply the correct burden of proof. Segura will have the burden to show that there is a reasonable possibility that he is suffering from a qualifying condition because of his military service.
Court Proceedings
In the motion, Segura alleged he was a military veteran who had served for about four years. To support this claim, Segura provided his discharge certificate, which detailed, in part, his record of service: a United States Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal; a National Defense Service Medal; a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; a Sea Service Deployment Ribbon; and a Sharpshooter Rifle Qualification Badge.
Segura alleged he is suffering from alcohol abuse use disorder and another mental health condition, and those qualifying conditions were the result of his military service. Segura provided two psychologist reports, and 255 pages of confidential medical records from the Veterans Administration.
The trial court conducted a hearing on the section 1001.80 motion The court found that Segura’s alcohol use predated his military service.
Segura filed a petition for a writ of mandate.
Discussion Segura claims the trial court abused its discretion by denying his section 1001.80 motion for military diversion.
The Distinction Between Misdemeanor and Felony Military Diversion
Pretrial diversion is the suspension of criminal proceedings for a prescribed time period, subject to certain conditions. When a defendant successfully completes a diversion program, the criminal charges are dismissed and the defendant may legally answer that he or she has never been arrested for—or charged with—the diverted offense, subject to certain exceptions.”
“A defendant charged with a misdemeanor is eligible for diversion if both of the following apply: (1) The defendant was, or currently is, a member of the United States military. (2) (A) The defendant may be suffering from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of their military service. (B) The court may request, using existing resources, an assessment to aid in the determination that this paragraph applies to a defendant.” (§ 1001.80 (b), italics added.)
Subdivision (c), the subdivision concerning felonies, provides, in relevant part: “A defendant charged with a felony offense not set forth in subdivision (o) is eligible if both of the following apply: (1) The defendant was, or currently is, a member of the United States military. (2)(A) The defendant may be suffering from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or a mental health problem as a result of their military service, and the defendant’s condition was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. (B) The court shall find that the defendant’s condition 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.”5 (§ 1001.80 (c).)
Subdivision (d) provides that if the trial court finds a defendant eligible for military diversion under subdivision (b) or (c), and the defendant waives their speedy trial right, then the court “may place the defendant in a pretrial diversion program as defined” within the statute. (§ 1001.80 (d).) If the court finds a defendant eligible for military diversion under subdivision (b) or (c), then the court has the discretion to determine whether a defendant is then suitable for diversion under subdivision (d).
Under the plain meaning of section 1001.80 (c), when a court is determining whether a defendant charged with a felony is eligible for military diversion, the court must find that there is a nexus, or a relationship between the defendant’s qualifying condition (e.g., alcohol abuse) and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the felony offense (e.g., the felony driving incident). The court must find that “the defendant’s condition was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.” (§ 1001.80 (c)(2)(A).)
Under the plain meaning of section 1001.80 (b), when a court is determining whether a defendant charged with a misdemeanor is eligible for military diversion, the court does not need to find any sort of relationship between the defendant’s qualifying condition (e.g., alcohol abuse) and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense (e.g., the misdemeanor driving incident).
Here, the People charged Segura with four misdemeanor DUI offenses, all of which arose out of one incident. But when the trial court found Segura ineligible for military diversion, the court stated, in part: “So with everything that the court has there is just no nexus that this incident or his alcohol abuse is related to the military.”
The court was acting under a presumption that Segura needed to show some kind of relationship (a “nexus”) between his qualifying condition (“alcohol abuse” disorder) and the commission of the DUI offenses (“the incident”).
The trial court’s ruling appears to have misinterpreted the legal requirements under section 1001.80, which is an error of law that also constitutes an abuse of discretion.
The Burden of Proof Under Section 1001.80
To be eligible for military diversion, a person must show that he or she “was, or currently is, a member of the United States military.” (§ 1001.80 (b)(1) & (c)(1).) The person also has the burden to show that he or she “may be suffering from [a qualifying condition] as a result of their military service.” (§ 1001.80 (b)(2)(A) & (c)(2)(A).)
The plain and commonsense meaning of the word “may” is “used to express possibility.”
The word “may” in section 1001.80 means that a defendant has the burden to show a reasonable possibility that he or she is suffering from a qualifying condition as a result of their military service, or a fairly low burden of proof.
To be eligible for military diversion, a defendant has the burden to show that he or she “may be suffering from [a qualifying condition] as a result of their military service.” (§ 1001.80 (b)(2) & (c)(2).) The Legislature intended to impose a lower “reasonable possibility” burden of proof,making it less burdensome for a veteran, or a member of the military, to establish their eligibility for pretrial military diversion.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.