The case centers on Keena Teloca Landrine, who was placed into mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36 in September 2021 to resolve four Santa Clara County cases arising from a pattern of thefts at health care facilities, senior living centers, hospitals, and schools. While on diversion, prosecutors filed six new complaints charging Landrine with 43 additional alleged offenses following the same pattern — allegedly entering restricted areas under false pretenses, stealing wallets and personal property from employees and elderly residents, and infiltrating schools while posing as a substitute teacher or school district official. Landrine also admitted a drug relapse in January 2023 and declined referral to a detox program.
Despite all of that, the Santa Clara Superior Court found in February 2024 that Landrine had successfully completed diversion and dismissed the four original cases. The trial court acknowledged it could have terminated diversion because new felonies had been committed, but concluded that Landrine had made what it called "amazing progress, and that kind of progress can't go unnoticed" during her time in custody — including completing 37 weeks of uninterrupted program participation, 15 therapy sessions, three college-level courses, and earning recognition for leadership from the Sheriff's Office.
The Sixth District reversed. The panel held that the mental health diversion statute does not leave the satisfactory-completion determination to a trial court's unfettered discretion. Penal Code section 1001.36, subdivision (h) states that a court may conclude a defendant performed satisfactorily only if the defendant has substantially complied with the requirements of diversion, has avoided significant new violations of law unrelated to the defendant's mental health condition, and has a plan in place for long-term mental health care. Landrine satisfied none of those conditions: she violated the no-new-crimes requirement dozens of times, admitted a drug relapse, and declined substance-abuse treatment.
The court held that in-custody accomplishments, however genuine and unusual, cannot substitute for the statutory prerequisites. The Legislature structured the statute in terms that do not permit courts to consider such accomplishments in the face of repeated, serious violations of diversion requirements. The panel reversed the February 6, 2024 dismissal order and remanded for further proceedings on all four dockets.
The opinion was originally filed March 24, 2026 and certified for publication April 20, 2026 following requests from the California District Attorneys Association and district attorneys from eleven counties, including Alameda, Orange, San Diego, Santa Clara, and Yolo.