The California Department of Justice (DOJ) has released the full writ of mandate it filed challenging a Kern County judge’s decision to grant mental health diversion to a criminal defendant, providing new details about the state’s arguments.

The filing was submitted on February 18, 2026, by Attorney General Rob Bonta and Deputy Attorney General Joseph Penney. The DOJ is asking the Court of Appeal to issue a writ of mandate directing the Kern County Superior Court to vacate its diversion order and deny Scrivner’s request for mental health diversion.

The department previously said it had asked the California Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District, to review and overturn a ruling by the Kern County Superior Court. The lower court approved diversion for Zachary Nelson Scrivner, who faces felony charges, including child abuse and possession of assault weapons.

Scrivner was charged with three counts of child abuse under circumstances likely to cause serious injury or death and two counts of possessing assault weapons, including an AK-47-style rifle and an AR-15-style rifle. 

Prosecutors said Scrivner used mind- or mood-altering substances while caring for one child and brought firearms into situations with two other children, leading to struggles over the weapons.

In December 2025, the Kern County Superior Court approved mental health diversion for all charges after finding that Scrivner had a qualifying mental health disorder within the previous five years. Mental health diversion allows defendants with certain disorders to receive treatment instead of going through the traditional criminal justice process.

In its filing, the DOJ argued that Scrivner did not meet the legal requirements for diversion on the assault weapon counts. Prosecutors said there is “clear and convincing evidence” that his diagnosed mental health disorders were not a “motivating, causal, or contributing factor” in the weapons offenses.

“Because there was no substantial evidence supporting the superior court’s conclusion that the relevant presumption was not rebutted as to the assault weapon charges, this Court must further decide whether diversion on the remainder of the accusatory pleading—the child abuse charges—is likewise barred,” the DOJ wrote. 

Under state law, courts usually assume a defendant’s mental health problem played a big role in a crime, unless there is very strong evidence showing it didn’t. The DOJ said that in Scrivner’s case, this strong evidence exists, pointing to his mental health evaluation and addendum.

The DOJ argued that those evaluations showed Scrivner understood gun laws and that he had owned the weapons for a long time, not because of any mental health problems.

“Defendant’s mental health disorders had no relationship to his possession of two illegal, unregistered assault weapons. The Legislature afforded an opportunity to maintain legal ownership over such pre-ban firearms if the owner properly registered their assault weapons with the state by July 1, 2018,” the DOJ wrote. 

The department also challenges the wider diversion order, saying that if some charges are ineligible, diversion should be blocked for the entire case.

The filing raises a new legal question: whether a court can grant mental health diversion for some charges when other charges in the same case are legally ineligible. 

The DOJ points out that the law talks about diversion for the whole case, not just some charges. They also reference past court decisions, like People v. Frahs and Tellez v. Superior Court, which explain which charges can or cannot get diversion. Recent cases, including People v. Garcia, support the DOJ’s view that if some charges are ineligible, diversion shouldn’t be allowed for any of them.

The DOJ also warned that allowing diversion for only some charges could create problems in the case. Some charges might go to treatment while others go to trial, which could make scheduling difficult, affect witness availability, and cause delays or evidence issues.

Under state law, all charges in a diversion case are dismissed if the diversion is successfully completed. The DOJ said letting diversion happen when some charges are not eligible could wrongly lead to dismissing charges that lawmakers meant to keep in the system.

“In summary, mental health diversion should be denied on all counts in an accusatory pleading where some counts are ineligible because of a complete disconnect between those offenses and the mental disorder. Thus, denial of diversion in both the child abuse and assault weapon charges is mandated here,” the DOJ concluded.