When Military Service Can Protect DUI Defendants: A Look at Wade v. Superior Court

Did you know that military service members in California can sometimes qualify for diversion programs if they are arrested for driving under the influence (DUI)? The use of this diversion program isn’t guaranteed, though, and benefiting from it can be a challenge if the prosecution won’t cooperate. In the landmark case Wade v. Superior Court (Wade v. Superior Court (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 694), the use of this diversion program was examined closely by the court, and the case result set a precedent that every military service member should know about.

Andrew Wade’s DUI Arrest

Andrew Wade, an active-duty U.S. Army Special Forces member, was arrested in June 2017 for misdemeanor DUI after police observed his vehicle weaving and traveling slowly on Highway 1 in Monterey County, California. His blood alcohol concentration (BAC) measured 0.16%. Wade applied for pretrial military diversion under CA Penal Code § 1001.80, which allows eligible current or former military members suffering from service-related mental health conditions to enter a diversion program. The prosecution opposed the request, arguing that Wade’s high BAC and the nature of the offense rendered him unsuitable for diversion.

DUI Diversion Denial Leads to Appeal

The trial court denied Wade’s diversion request, citing public safety concerns and the dangerous nature of DUI offenses. The appellate division upheld this decision in a 2–1 ruling. Wade then filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal.

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying military diversion based primarily on the nature of the offense and Wade’s BAC, contrary to the legislative intent of CA Penal Code § 1001.80? Yes, according to the appellate court, anyway. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by focusing on the offense's nature and the defendant's BAC, rather than considering the rehabilitative purpose of the military diversion statute.

The appellate court emphasized that CA Penal Code § 1001.80 is designed to provide treatment and rehabilitation for eligible military personnel. The Legislature explicitly included misdemeanor DUI offenses within the scope of this statute, indicating an intent not to exclude such offenses from diversion eligibility. By focusing on the dangerousness of DUI offenses and applying criteria from felony sentencing guidelines, the trial court failed to align its discretion with the statute's rehabilitative goals.

Lastly, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its denial of Wade’s diversion request and to reconsider the request in light of the statute's rehabilitative purpose.

Arguments in Favor of Granting Diversion in DUI Cases

1. Legislative Intent: CA Penal Code § 1001.80 explicitly includes misdemeanor DUI offenses as eligible for military diversion, reflecting the Legislature's intent to provide rehabilitative opportunities for service members facing such charges.
2. Rehabilitative Purpose: The statute aims to address underlying service-related mental health issues through treatment rather than punishment. Denying diversion based solely on the offense's nature undermines this rehabilitative objective.
3. Case Law Support: In Wade v. Superior Court, the appellate court clarified that courts must consider the statute's rehabilitative goals and not impose additional criteria not specified by the Legislature.

Arguments Against Granting Diversion in DUI Cases

1. Public Safety Concerns: Opponents argue that DUI offenses pose significant risks to public safety, and allowing diversion could undermine deterrence and accountability.
2. Potential for Abuse: There is concern that broad eligibility for diversion might lead to its misuse, with individuals seeking to avoid consequences without a genuine commitment to rehabilitation.
3. Conflicting Statutes: CA Vehicle Code § 23640 prohibits diversion for DUI offenses under certain programs. However, the Legislature amended CA Penal Code § 1001.80 to specifically allow military diversion for DUI offenses, indicating an exception to this prohibition.

Courts Must Recognize DUI Diversions for Military Service Members

In conclusion, while public safety concerns are valid, the Legislature has made a clear policy decision to allow military diversion for misdemeanor DUI offenses, emphasizing rehabilitation for service members with service-related mental health issues. Courts must align their discretion with this legislative intent, focusing on the individual's eligibility and potential for rehabilitation rather than the offense's inherent dangers.