California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Jefferson, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 170, 38 Cal.App.5th 399 (Cal. App. 2019):
On this record, the trial court clearly indicated defendant's alleged mental health disorder was not a significant factor in his commission of the charged offenses, making him ineligible for diversion. Thus, remanding the matter to the trial court would be an idle act. (See People v. Coelho (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 861, 889, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 729 ["reviewing courts have consistently declined to remand cases where doing so would be an idle act that exalts form over substance because it is not reasonably probable the court would impose a different sentence"]; see also People v. Gutierrez , supra , 58 Cal.4th at p. 1391, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 324 P.3d 245 [where court is unaware of discretionary sentencing choices, remand for resentencing is required unless record " clearly indicate[s] " trial court would have reached same conclusion " even if it had been aware that it had such discretion "].)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.