Hopkins v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.

Citation2 Cal.App.5th 1275,207 Cal.Rptr.3d 217
Decision Date01 September 2016
Docket NumberNo. B270503,B270503
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Parties Terence William HOPKINS, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Appellate Division, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest.

Ronald L. Brown, Public Defender, Albert J. Menaster, Jordana Mosten and Dylan Ford, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Debbie Lew, Assistant City Attorney, and Rick V. Curcio, Deputy City Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.

WILLHITE

, J.

In 2014, the California Legislature enacted a statute, Penal Code section 1001.80

,1 authorizing a trial court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant charged with a misdemeanor if the defendant was, or currently is, a member of the United States military and suffers from sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of his or her military service.2 The purpose of the pretrial diversion program is to allow veterans who are suffering as a result of their service to get the services they need and also help them be more easily employed by keeping convictions off their records if they successfully complete the program.

The question presented in this writ proceeding is whether Vehicle Code section 23640

, which prohibits pretrial diversion in any case charging a violation of Vehicle Code section 23152 or 23153 (a DUI case),3 precludes the trial court from placing in a pretrial diversion program a defendant in a DUI case who would otherwise qualify for pretrial diversion under section 1001.80

. Based on the rules of statutory construction, the language of section 1001.80 and Vehicle Code section 23640, and the legislative history of section 1001.80, we conclude that Vehicle Code section 23640 does not bar pretrial diversion for veterans or active duty members of the military who meet the criteria of section 1001.80 and are charged in a DUI case.

We note that on the day this case was argued before this court, our colleagues in the Fourth Appellate District, Division One, filed an opinion reaching the opposite conclusion. (People v. VanVleck (August 11, 2016, D069893) 2 Cal.App.5th 355, 2016 WL 4247781

(VanVleck ).) We urge the Legislature to act by amending section 1001.80 to express its intent with regard to military diversion in DUI cases.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Terence William Hopkins was charged with misdemeanor counts of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a)

, and driving while having 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his blood in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b). The incident leading to the charges occurred on August 21, 2015. He pled not guilty, and moved for military diversion under section 1001.80.

In support of his motion for diversion, Hopkins provided letters from Pamela Davis, a clinical social worker for the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA), and Dr. Benjamin Shapiro, a psychiatrist for the VA.

Ms. Davis stated that Hopkins served in the United States Navy Reserves, and was activated from October 19, 2007 to November 10, 2008. He completed a combat tour in Afghanistan and was a military police officer in an internment facility that housed Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners. Ms. Davis stated that Hopkins was exposed to significant trauma during his service, and had service-connected PTSD. She noted that Hopkins began mental health services at the VA in May 2015, and was under the care of a psychiatrist. She also stated that Hopkins was referred to the “Addictive Behaviors Clinic” at the VA, where he will participate in a 16–week program and will be drug tested and breathalyzed on a regular and random basis.

Hopkins provided two letters from Dr. Shapiro. In the first, dated September 10, 2015 (a few weeks after the incident that led to the charges being filed against Hopkins), Dr. Shapiro stated that Hopkins had been under his care since April 2015. Hopkins had informed Dr. Shapiro that he had developed a problem with binge alcohol addiction

, and they had been establishing a plan for treatment for substance abuse just before Hopkins' DUI incident. Dr. Shapiro also reported that Hopkins had remained sober since the incident. In the second letter, dated November 5, 2015, Dr. Shapiro stated that Hopkins' alcohol dependence arose due to active PTSD, which is a common consequence of combat exposure. He reported that Hopkins had moved into recovery from his addiction successfully, and he anticipated that Hopkins would maintain his sobriety due to his commitment to his family and his future.

The People opposed Hopkins' motion on the ground that Vehicle Code section 23640

precludes diversion in any DUI case, citing People v. Weatherill (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1569, 264 Cal.Rptr. 298 (Weatherill ). In that case, Division Seven of this district addressed whether a diversion statute applicable to misdemeanor defendants with cognitive developmental disabilities (§ 1001.21) applied when the defendant was charged with DUI. The majority (over a dissent by Johnson, J.) held that Vehicle Code sections 23202 and 23206 (renumbered as Veh. Code, §§ 23640 and 23600 )4 precluded application of section 1001.21 in such a case.

In reply, Hopkins argued that section 1001.80

, which was enacted in 2014, governed over the earlier-enacted Vehicle Code section 23640, and that excluding DUI cases from the military diversion statute was contrary to the language and purpose of section 1001.80. He contended that Weatherhill did not require a different result since, unlike the present case, the diversion statute in that case was enacted before the Vehicle Code statute.

In ruling on Hopkins' motion, the trial court noted it was undisputed that Hopkins met the criteria to qualify for diversion under section 1001.80

. However, the court found that the fact that section 1001.80 was enacted after Vehicle Code section 23640 was not dispositive because repeals by implication are disfavored (citing People v. Siko (1988) 45 Cal.3d 820, 824, 248 Cal.Rptr. 110, 755 P.2d 294 ). It also found that a specific statute such as Vehicle Code section 23640 prevails over a general diversion statute (citing Weatherill, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1577–1578, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 382 ). Therefore, the court concluded that diversion under section 1001.80 was barred by Vehicle Code section 23640, and denied Hopkins' request.

Hopkins filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court, challenging the trial court's determination that it had no discretion to order pretrial diversion under section 1001.80

. He asked the appellate division to issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its December 18, 2015 order denying Hopkins' request for diversion and to exercise its discretion to determine whether he should be granted diversion under section 1001.80. On January 26, 2016, the Appellate Division summarily denied the petition, citing Vehicle Code section 23600, 5subdivision (a), and Weatherill, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at pages 1572–1573, 264 Cal.Rptr. 298

. Hopkins then filed the instant petition in this court, requesting that we issue a writ of mandate directing the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court to issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its December 18, 2015 order finding that Hopkins is ineligible for diversion under section 1001.80, and to exercise its discretion to determine whether diversion should be granted. We issued an order to show cause to the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court, ordering it to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue directing it to vacate its order denying Hopkins' petition for writ of mandate and to make a new and different order granting the petition. We also ordered all proceedings in the trial court stayed pending further order of this court.

DISCUSSION

Here we are faced with two seemingly inconsistent statutes: section 1001.80

, which would allow the court in this case to place Hopkins in a pretrial diversion program, and Vehicle Code section 23640, which would prohibit the court from doing so. The California Supreme Court recently reiterated the approach a court must take when faced with potentially inconsistent statutes. “A court must, where reasonably possible, harmonize statutes, reconcile seeming inconsistencies in them, and construe them to give force and effect to all of their provisions. [Citations.] This rule applies although one of the statutes involved deals generally with a subject and another relates specifically to particular aspects of the subject.” [Citation.] Thus, when ‘two codes are to be construed, they “must be regarded as blending into each other and forming a single statute.” [Citation.] Accordingly, they “must be read together and so construed as to give effect, when possible, to all the provisions thereof.” [Citation.] [Citation.] Further, [a]ll presumptions are against a repeal by implication. [Citations.] [Citation.] Absent an express declaration of legislative intent, we will find an implied repeal “only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes [citation], and the statutes are ‘irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation.’ ' ' [Citations.] (State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 940, 955–956, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 60, 342 P.3d 1217 (State Dept. ).)

The Supreme Court cautioned that “the requirement that courts harmonize potentially inconsistent statutes when possible is not a license to redraft the statutes to strike a compromise that the Legislature did not reach.” (State Dept., supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 956, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 60, 342 P.3d 1217

.) It explained that [t]he cases in which we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Tan v. Superior Court of San Mateo Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 10, 2022
    ...not eligible for military diversion. ( VanVleck , at pp. 363–367, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 839.) The court in Hopkins v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1275, 1278–1279, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 217, review granted Nov. 16, 2016, S237734, disagreed, noting the canon of construction 76 Cal.App.5th 150 tha......
  • People v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 28, 2022
    ...v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 940, 956-960, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 60, 342 P.3d 1217 ( State Dept. ); Hopkins v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1275, 1285-1286, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 217 ( Hopkins ), in concluding both that (1) the statutes irreconcilably conflict, and (2) the Legislature int......
  • Moore v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 2020
    ...diversion ( VanVleck, supra , 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 365, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 839 ), while the court in Hopkins v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1275, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 217 ( Hopkins ), held that Penal Code section 1001.80 "supersedes Vehicle Code section 23640 to the extent that the latter st......
  • Moore v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 2020
    ...diversion ( VanVleck, supra , 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 365, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 839 ), while the court in Hopkins v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1275, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 217 ( Hopkins ), held that Penal Code section 1001.80 "supersedes Vehicle Code section 23640 to the extent that the latter st......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...F2d 465 (6th Cir. 1959), §1:54.2 Hopkins v. Bovicino, 573 F3d 752 (9th Cir. 2009), §7:20.7, 7:77.3(a) Hopkins v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1275, §§3:55.1, 3:55.2, 8:10 Hopt v. People of Utah (1887) 120 U.S. 430, §9:12 Horner v. Board of Trustees (1964) 61 Cal.2d 79, §11:217 Hosek ......
  • Diversion and the suspension of proceedings
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • March 30, 2022
    ...Veh. C § 23640 bars it. This led to a split of authority in two published Court of Appeal cases, with Hopkins v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1275, holding that Veh. C §23640 does not bar it and People v. VanVleck (2016) 2 Cal. App.5th 355, reaching the opposite conclusion. The Hopki......
  • Developments in Law Regarding Veterans
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Litigation Review (CLA) No. 2019, 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...that military diversion is not available for defendants charged with driving under the influence. In Hopkins v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1275, the appeals court reached the opposite conclusion. The California Supreme Court granted review in Hopkins.The language in Hopkins include......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT