Denial Of Mental Health Diversion And Probation Condition Were Affirmed
Posted on October 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4860
In The People v. Nicholas Daniel Stiles, A173483, A173646, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (September 29, 2026) Nicholas Daniel Stiles pleaded no contest to one count of insurance fraud arising from his purchase of automobile insurance after a June 2021 collision, and to grand theft arising from an April 2024 incident at a 7-Eleven.
In both cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Before the pleas, Stiles sought mental health diversion in both matters and filed a written motion seeking substitute appointed counsel. The diversion applications were denied, and the court never held a hearing on the motion.
LAW
Penal Code section 1001.36 permits pretrial mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible and suitable and the proposed treatment will meet the defendant’s specialized needs; denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion and factual findings for substantial evidence. Once a defendant clearly requests discharge and replacement of appointed counsel, the court must allow the defendant to explain the request; failure to hold a hearing is reversible unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, though a request may be abandoned in some circumstances.
DISCUSSION
Mental Health Diversion.
Although the parties agreed the trial court erred in finding Stiles ineligible, the appellate court upheld the denial because the record supported the conclusion that the proposed treatment would not meet his specialized needs. The defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion in denying his applications for mental health diversion. The Court of Appeals disagreed.
A defendant is suitable for diversion if he satisfies all four criteria set forth in section 1001.36, subdivision (c):
1 in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s mental health disorder would respond to mental health treatment;
2 the defendant consents to diversion and agrees to waive their speedy trial rights;
3 the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and
4 the defendant will not pose an “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as defined in section 1170.18, if treated in the community.
A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. Under the substantial evidence test, the Court of Appeals must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.
Motion.
Stiles clearly requested substitute counsel, the court failed to conduct a hearing, and nothing showed that counsel knew of the request or that Stiles abandoned it. The silent record could not establish harmlessness.
ANALYSIS
The court used liberal construction to reach both appeals, deferred to the trial court’s treatment-based assessment on diversion despite an erroneous eligibility rationale, and construed the probation condition narrowly in context to avoid constitutional invalidity.
The result preserves the probation dispositions unless the trial court concludes after the required hearing that continued representation substantially impaired Stiles’s right to counsel.
CONCLUSION
The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the probation orders in both cases and remanded for a hearing. If Stiles establishes that failure to replace appointed counsel would substantially impair his right to counsel, the trial court must appoint new counsel and consider any resulting applications; otherwise, it must reinstate probation.
ZALMA OPINION
The unmitigated gall of insurance fraud perpetrators should never surprise anyone interested in insurance but it continues to surprise and shock me – perhaps I am just naive. In this case, after being convicted Stiles sought to avoid jail by asking for the mental health services provided by California courts. It didn’t work and the California Court of appeals affirmed the denial of mental health diversion and the challenged probation condition were affirmed.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Excellence in Claims Handling
Posted on October 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Common Problems in a Jewelers’ Block Policy Investigation
If you are not a subscriber you will read from this link until you reach the paywall end of this blog post as the free part of Excellence in Claims Handling. You should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the button above.
This is a taste of the latest Excellence in Claims Handling Article for subscribers to my substack. Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
The History of the Jewelers’ Block Policy
The ‘jewelers’ block policy’ had its origin about 1920, and since that time the policy and the proposal upon which it is based have become more or less standard.
The Inland-Marine Insurance Bureau, of which appellant is a member, prescribes contracts and proposals for such policies that are ...
Self Insurance is Excess Over Primary Insurance
Post 4572
Posted on October 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Employment Plan is Insurance Because it Transferred Risk and Contained Claim, Exclusion, and Priority Provisions.
In Ajay Kolli, & c. et al. v. Kaleida Health, 2026 NY Slip Op 06167, No. 72, New York Court of Appeals (October 22, 2026) Dr. Venkateswara Kolli treated a patient in 2011 while serving as an on-call, per diem physician for Kaleida Health. The patient later sued Dr. Kolli and Kaleida for medical malpractice.
In 2011, decedent Dr. Venkateswara Kolli treated a patient as part of his duties pursuant to an on-call, per diem physician employment agreement with defendant Kaleida Health. The patient subsequently sued Dr. Kolli and Kaleida. Dr. Kolli sought indemnity from his primary medical malpractice insurer, MLMIC Insurance Company (MLMIC), as well as his excess insurer Healthcare Professionals Insurance Company (HPIC).
The underlying medical malpractice action settled after Dr. Kolli’s death. Kaleida, MLMIC, and ...
RICO Suit Against Law Firm & Health Care Pros Fails
Posted on October 28, 2026 by Barry Zalma
UBER AND FEDEX FIGHT FRAUD
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is Designed to Defeat Fraud Perpetrators
In Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Simon & Simon P.C., et al., Civil Action No. 25-5365, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (October 13, 2026) Uber Technologies, Inc. and Federal Express Corporation sued attorney Marc Simon, his firm Simon & Simon, P.C., and several medical professionals and practices under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
They allege the defendants orchestrated a scheme to generate and litigate fraudulent personal injury claims arising from motor vehicle accidents involving Uber and FedEx drivers. Uber and FedEx incurred defense costs and paid settlements on some claims. The court earlier denied a motion to dismiss, finding proximate causation adequately pleaded. Fact discovery is set to close December 21, 2026.
Discovery showed Uber’s...
