The California Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court’s decision regarding Edward Joseph Riddle, who pleaded no contest to arson of a structure. Riddle, who was initially granted mental health diversion, appealed the termination of that diversion and the denial of his request for public funds to cover his private mental health treatment. The appellate court found no error in the lower court’s actions.
The Incident and the Charges
The case stems from an incident on May 12, 2023, where Riddle, under the influence of methamphetamine, set fire to his sister’s doorbell and later started a fire in the street gutter. The prosecution charged him with arson of an inhabited structure. Due to a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, Riddle also faced a prior strike conviction, which would increase his sentence if convicted.
Mental Health Diversion and the Initial Grant
In November 2023, Riddle requested mental health diversion, a program that allows defendants with qualifying mental disorders to receive treatment instead of facing standard criminal proceedings. He stated he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and a substance abuse disorder. His motion included an assessment that recommended residential treatment.
The trial court initially granted the mental health diversion on December 21, 2023, contingent on Riddle entering a residential drug treatment program to address his substance use disorder. Riddle had been accepted to Walter’s House, a residential treatment facility.
The Termination of Diversion
However, by February 2024, it became clear that Riddle could not be placed at Walter’s House due to issues with his Medi-Cal coverage. Riddle then requested to participate in an intensive outpatient program with housing at a room and board facility. The court denied this request, stating that it was “not willing to take that step in terms of I think it too great a risk,” as the conduct was “very concerning, very dangerous.” The court set aside the granting of mental health diversion.
Riddle argued that the court abused its discretion by terminating the diversion. However, the appellate court disagreed. The appellate court found that the trial court withdrew the diversion because Riddle could not obtain the residential treatment that the court deemed a necessary condition for diversion. The court’s decision wasn’t based on a finding that Riddle was a risk to public safety, but rather on the fact that the initial treatment plan, a key part of the diversion, was no longer viable.
Funding for Treatment and the Court’s Decision
In April 2024, Riddle filed a motion asking the trial court to fund his treatment at Walter’s House. His health insurance provider, Sacramento County’s Medi-Cal program, had refused to pay for his treatment at Walter’s House because the facility did not carry the liability insurance required for treating individuals charged with or convicted of arson offenses. The trial court denied the motion.
Riddle argued that the court should have ordered the expenditure of public funds. The appellate court, however, sided with the lower court. The appellate court stated that the law does not compel the court to order the county to pay for Riddle’s treatment after an existing public program (Medi-Cal) declined to cover it. The court explained that the law allows treatment to be funded publicly or privately, but it does not create a right to unspecified public funds for private treatment not otherwise covered by existing public programs.
The Plea Agreement and the Appeal
On June 27, 2024, Riddle entered into a plea agreement. He pleaded no contest to the charge of arson of a structure and admitted the prior strike conviction. In exchange, he received a sentence of four years. He then appealed the lower court’s decisions. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision.