Q: Does completing mental health diversion clear my record?
A: Close to it, and the statutory language is unusually strong — but two carve-outs survive, and "dismissed," "sealed" and "expunged" are three different things that get used interchangeably by almost everyone.
What the statute actually says
If you perform satisfactorily, "at the end of the period of diversion, the court shall dismiss the defendant's criminal charges."¹ Satisfactory performance is defined generously: the court may conclude you performed satisfactorily if you have substantially complied with the requirements, have "avoided significant new violations of law unrelated to the defendant's mental health condition," and "has a plan in place for long-term mental health care."¹
Then the strong part:
"the arrest upon which the diversion was based shall be deemed never to have occurred, and the court shall order access to the record of the arrest restricted in accordance with Section 1001.9… The defendant who successfully completes diversion may indicate in response to any question concerning the defendant's prior criminal record that the defendant was not arrested or diverted for the offense."¹
And separately: a record of that arrest, "or any record generated as a result of the defendant's application for or participation in diversion, shall not, without the defendant's consent, be used in any way that could result in the denial of any employment, benefit, license, or certificate."²
Note the breadth of that second one — it protects the record generated by applying, even if diversion was never granted.
The two carve-outs, which the court must warn you about
The statute requires you to be advised that, "regardless of the defendant's completion of diversion," both of these are true:³
1. Peace officer applications. The arrest "may be disclosed by the Department of Justice to any peace officer application request," and the protective provision above "does not relieve the defendant of the obligation to disclose the arrest in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for a position as a peace officer."³ If you are applying to be a peace officer, you answer honestly.
2. Criminal justice agencies. A sealing order under this section "has no effect on a criminal justice agency's ability to access and use those sealed records."³ Sealed is not gone; it is walled off from the public and from employers, not from the system.
Dismissed, sealed, expunged — three different mechanisms
People use these as synonyms. They are not, and knowing which one you have determines what you can say.
Dismissal under section 1001.36 is what you get here: charges dismissed, arrest deemed never to have occurred, and a statutory permission to answer that you were not arrested. The court is directed to restrict access "in accordance with Section 1001.9," and section 1001.9 says the court "may issue an order to seal the records."⁴ Note the permissive verb — worth asking your lawyer to request the sealing order expressly rather than assuming it issues on its own.
Sealing under Penal Code sections 851.91 and 851.92 is a separate route, for arrests that did not lead to conviction. Section 851.92's list of the diversion statutes it applies to names sections 851.87, 851.90, 851.91, 1000.4 and 1001.9 — so a mental health diversion reaches that machinery through section 1001.9's permissive order, not directly.⁵
Automatic conviction relief under Penal Code section 1203.425 is a third thing, and it is expressly about "persons with convictions."⁶ Diversion produces no conviction, so section 1203.425 is not your provision. Anyone telling you your diversion will be handled by the automatic-relief statute is describing a different remedy.
What this means in practice
For an ordinary job application: the statutory permission is broad — you may answer that you were not arrested or diverted, and the record may not be used to deny employment without your consent. California's fair chance rules on background checks sit on top of that.
For a professional licence: the same non-use provision names "license" and "certificate" expressly.² But a licensing board that asks a direct question is asking under its own statute, and if the licence you are seeking is a peace officer position, carve-out one applies. This is worth one specific question to a lawyer rather than a general reassurance from a website.
For a background check run by a private company: the DOJ record is restricted, but commercial databases scrape court records at the time they are public and do not always refresh. If a stale record surfaces, the fix is a dispute with the reporting agency, with the dismissal order attached.
Do this: on the day diversion is completed, ask the court for a written order of dismissal and, expressly, for the sealing order under Penal Code section 1001.9 — the statute makes that order permissive, so ask rather than assume. Get certified copies and keep them somewhere you can find them in five years. Then, if a background check ever comes back wrong, you are attaching a document rather than telling a story. More on mental health diversion → · Reentry, records and getting care →
Sources
- Penal Code §1001.36(h) — leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
- Penal Code §1001.36(i).
- Penal Code §1001.36(j)(1)–(2).
- Penal Code §1001.9(a) — leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
- Penal Code §851.92(a) — leginfo.legislature.ca.gov; Penal Code §851.91.
- Penal Code §1203.425(a)(1)(A) — leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
- Penal Code §851.93(a)(2)(D)(v) is the automatic-relief provision that names Chapter 2.8A, with peace officer and specified care-facility carve-outs at (d)(1) and (d)(6) — leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
All sections read on the operative text on 18 August 2026. This page describes the statute; it is not legal advice, and what you must disclose on a particular application depends on that application's own governing law.