Judge Dwayne K. Moring

Judge Dwayne K. Moring serves on the San Diego County Superior Court, having been appointed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2016. As a Brown appointee, he joins a cohort of judges generally associated with progressive criminal justice values, including heightened attention to mental health considerations, diversion programs, and procedural fairness. The limited but notable public record of his judicial work reveals a consistent engagement with complex criminal proceedings, particularly those involving mental health dimensions. His presiding over the high-profile Larry Millete case — in which he declared competency doubtful and suspended criminal proceedings in June 2022 — demonstrates both his willingness to apply procedural safeguards rigorously and his comfort managing cases with intense public and media scrutiny. Perhaps more revealing is the reported case involving the wrongful denial of mental health diversion for a woman with PTSD. The characterization of that denial as 'wrongful' — whether by an appellate body or legal commentators — suggests that Judge Moring's rulings on diversion eligibility have drawn scrutiny, and that his threshold for granting or denying mental health diversion may be a point of contention. This does not necessarily indicate a pattern of denial, but it does signal that his diversion rulings are subject to close review and that attorneys should be prepared to argue diversion eligibility with precision and thorough evidentiary support. Overall, Judge Moring appears to be a procedurally careful jurist who takes mental health issues seriously in criminal proceedings, is capable of managing high-stakes and high-visibility cases, and operates within a framework consistent with California's evolving criminal justice reform landscape. Given the limited data available, attorneys should approach appearances before him with thorough preparation, particularly on procedural and mental health-related issues.

Attorneys appearing before Judge Moring in criminal matters should prioritize thorough preparation on mental health diversion standards under Penal Code Section 1001.36 and related provisions. Given the documented case involving a disputed diversion denial, it is clear that this area of law receives close attention in his courtroom — whether from his own scrutiny or from appellate review of his decisions. Defense attorneys seeking diversion should present robust clinical documentation, expert testimony where possible, and a clear nexus between the diagnosed condition and the charged conduct. Prosecutors opposing diversion should similarly be prepared with specific, legally grounded objections rather than generalized public safety arguments. For competency-related proceedings, the Millete case demonstrates that Judge Moring is willing to act decisively when competency is genuinely in doubt, suspending proceedings in accordance with statutory requirements. Attorneys should not treat competency declarations as a procedural afterthought — he appears to take these determinations seriously and expects counsel to be prepared with supporting evidence and a clear procedural roadmap. More broadly, given that his judicial philosophy data is limited, attorneys should default to formal, well-organized presentations. Cite statutory authority and case law precisely. Avoid relying on informal arguments or courtroom improvisation. In high-profile or media-sensitive matters, expect a measured and deliberate judicial temperament. Prepare written submissions that anticipate counterarguments, as a procedurally careful judge will likely have reviewed the record thoroughly before any hearing.

• critical

  Master Mental Health Diversion Statutory Framework

  For any case involving Penal Code 1001.36 or related diversion statutes, prepare a comprehensive brief addressing all eligibility criteria with supporting clinical documentation. Given the scrutiny his diversion rulings have received, a thorough evidentiary record is essential to both persuade the court and protect the record on appeal.

• critical

  Research Appellate History of His Rulings

  Conduct independent Westlaw/Lexis research to identify any published or unpublished appellate decisions reviewing Judge Moring's rulings. The reference to a wrongful diversion denial suggests at least one reversal or critical appellate review — understanding those cases will reveal his tendencies and vulnerabilities.

• important

  Prepare Competency Proceeding Roadmap if Relevant

  If competency is or may become an issue, prepare a detailed procedural roadmap citing Penal Code 1368 et seq., supporting expert declarations, and a proposed timeline. Judge Moring has demonstrated he will act on competency concerns — be ready to guide or respond to that process efficiently.

• important

  Consult Local Practitioners for Courtroom Intelligence

  Given the absence of attorney observations in available data, consult San Diego criminal defense attorneys or prosecutors who have appeared before Judge Moring for firsthand accounts of his courtroom preferences, temperament, and procedural expectations.

• important

  Prepare Written Submissions for All Key Arguments

  A procedurally careful judge who manages complex cases is likely to appreciate — and may expect — written briefs or points and authorities for significant legal arguments rather than purely oral presentations. Prepare written submissions in advance of any substantive hearing.

• Nice

  Review Media and Public Record of Millete Case Proceedings

  Reviewing publicly available coverage of the Millete case proceedings before Judge Moring can provide insight into his courtroom management style, how he handles procedural motions, and his communication style with counsel and parties.

• ›Maintain formal courtroom decorum at all times — Judge Moring has managed high-profile, media-intensive proceedings and is likely to expect professional conduct consistent with the gravity of criminal proceedings.
• ›Be thoroughly prepared on procedural law before any hearing; his documented attention to competency and diversion procedures suggests he will not tolerate procedural shortcuts or unprepared counsel.
• ›Address the court with precise statutory and case law citations rather than general equitable arguments — his rulings reflect engagement with specific legal standards rather than broad discretionary reasoning.
• ›If appearing in a sensitive or high-profile matter, be prepared for possible media management protocols and do not make statements in or near the courtroom that could be perceived as attempting to try the case in the press.
• ›Arrive early and be prepared to proceed efficiently — judges managing complex criminal dockets typically value counsel who respect the court's time and are ready to move forward without unnecessary delays.