People v. Jeong CA2/5

── People v. Jeong CA2/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/27/26 P. v. Jeong CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, B339210 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.23SFCF00120) v. ANDREW JEONG, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bernie C. LaForteza, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Debbie Yen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Daniel C. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  After the trial court denied defendant and appellant Andrew Jeong’s motion for pretrial mental health diversion (Pen. Code,1 § 1001.36), he pleaded no contest to one count of violating a domestic relations court order with violence and prior conviction (§ 273.6, subd. (d), count 1) and one count of criminal threats (§ 422, count 2). The trial court placed Jeong on formal probation for two years and ordered Jeong to serve 360 days in county jail with credit for time served. On appeal, Jeong contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his pre-plea motion for mental health diversion because he presented an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Jeong argues there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding. The People assert that substantial evidence supports the court’s public safety finding and additionally argue that Jeong’s proposed mental health treatment plan was inadequate to meet his needs. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s danger to public safety finding. We reverse the judgment and remand the cause for the court to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including an evaluation of the adequacy of the proposed mental health treatment plan. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2  BACKGROUND A. Prior Misdemeanor Convictions Prior to committing the current offenses, Jeong suffered three misdemeanor convictions, as follows: (1) in 2008, Jeong was convicted of vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)), for which he was placed on misdemeanor probation; (2) in 2015, Jeong was convicted of driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or greater (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)), for which he was placed on misdemeanor probation; and (3) in 2020, Jeong was convicted of intentional and knowing violation of a protective order and an outstanding warrant (§ 273.6, subd. (a)), for which he was again placed on misdemeanor probation. Jeong’s 2020 conviction concerned a protective order obtained by his brother, Peter. Police responded to several incidents at the family home in 2020. On February 14, 2020, police responded to a family dispute in which Jeong threatened to kill Peter. The family told police they were concerned that Jeong was suffering from drug addiction. Officers advised the family of available resources. On February 28, 2020, police responded to a report that Jeong had violated a restraining order by entering the family home. Officers served Jeong with the restraining order and escor