In a major victory Tuesday for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s fight for justice on behalf of three victims of a violent hate-fueled attack, a state appeals court struck down a judge’s decision that had allowed the accused assailant to enter a mental health treatment program instead of facing trial.
In a decision filed Sept. 30, the Second District Court of Appeal ordered the Los Angeles Superior Court to vacate its earlier ruling that granted pretrial diversion to Job Uriah Taylor, 27. The appellate panel concluded that no evidence supported the trial court’s implicit finding that Taylor would not pose “an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” if treated in the community, as required under California law.
Taylor faces multiple counts of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon for a March 2023 spree near the Expo Line station in Santa Monica. Prosecutors allege he struck 64-year-old Christian Hornburg — a homeless Black man — from behind with a metal pipe while yelling racial slurs, then stomped his head after he fell. Two others who tried to intervene were also attacked. Hornburg suffered a traumatic brain injury and now lives in a long-term care facility, unable to walk or care for himself.
Judge Lana Kim granted Taylor mental health diversion in March, placing him in Los Angeles County’s Office of Diversion and Reentry (ODR) program rather than sending him to trial. The program, while praised for reducing incarceration and promoting treatment, allows participants to avoid conviction if they comply with a treatment plan.
Prosecutors argued that Taylor had a history of abandoning treatment and refusing medication, making him a danger if released to an unlocked facility.
In its 18-page opinion, the appellate court agreed with District Attorney Nathan Hochman’s office, writing that “substantial evidence” either indicated or strongly suggested Taylor would likely abandon treatment “with potentially catastrophic consequences.”
The court found that mental health experts who evaluated Taylor had conditioned their safety assessments on his symptoms being controlled with medication but did not say that such control was likely.
“The requirement that the defendant not pose an unreasonable danger to public safety implicitly obligates the court to determine whether the defendant will likely follow through on this agreement,” the opinion stated. “No evidence here suggests that Taylor will follow through.”
The panel’s ruling vacates the Superior Court’s diversion order and directs it to enter a new order denying diversion. Taylor’s criminal case — which includes hate-crime enhancements — is now expected to proceed to trial.
Hochman called the earlier diversion a “miscarriage of justice,” warning that under ODR’s voluntary structure “at any moment, Taylor can walk out, and they can’t stop him.”
Hornburg said the attack left him permanently disabled and without a long-term care plan. “The judge never looked at me the way she looked at him,” he said. “It was like my life didn’t matter.”
Judge Kim, elected in 2020 on a platform emphasizing alternatives to incarceration, has previously faced criticism for granting diversion in high-profile cases involving violent or repeat offenders. Among them was Lisa Ann Heflin, who led police on a high-speed chase in 2024 injuring nine officers before also receiving mental health diversion.
The appellate court’s decision in People v. Superior Court (Taylor) is marked “not to be published,” meaning it cannot be cited as precedent in other cases, but it represents a sharp rebuke of the trial court’s handling of Taylor’s diversion.
Jamie Paige, Westside Current