On Thursday, July 16, the Superior Court in Vista will hear arguments over whether Eddie Sengendo, the driver charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter in Emery's death, should be granted misdemeanor diversion - a form of pretrial relief that could ultimately result in the criminal case being dismissed without a conviction, sentence or permanent criminal record if successfully completed.
The hearing, scheduled for 1:30pm in Department 1 of the Vista Courthouse, comes after months of court proceedings that have deeply divided Emery's supporters and reignited debate over California's expanding diversion laws. According to Emery's family and supporters, they intend to exercise their rights under Marsy's Law by delivering victim impact statements directly to the court in hopes of persuading the judge to deny diversion.
"This is the final motion hearing in the criminal case involving the death of Emery," the family said in a media advisory. "The defense has requested misdemeanor diversion - a pretrial outcome that would result in no sentencing and no criminal record for killing Emery."
The case stems from the evening of April 25, 2025, when Emery, a sixth-grade student at Park Dale Lane Elementary School, was walking in a marked crosswalk at Encinitas Boulevard and Village Square Drive after leaving dance class. Investigators allege Sengendo, driving a Nissan Xterra westbound, entered the intersection against a red light and collided with a southbound Ford Fusion before continuing forward into the crosswalk, where Emery had the right of way under a green pedestrian signal. The impact killed the 12-year-old at the scene.
Family members have consistently alleged that Sengendo never rendered aid after the collision and have criticized the initial investigation conducted by the San Diego County Sheriff's Office. In a government tort claim filed last year, the Chalekian family alleged deputies failed to administer sobriety testing despite what they contend was probable cause, failed to adequately secure the crash scene, and allowed evidence to be removed from Sengendo's vehicle while investigators were still processing the collision. The Sheriff's Office has not publicly addressed those allegations because of pending litigation.
Although Sengendo was released the night of the collision without being arrested, the San Diego County District Attorney's Office ultimately filed one count of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter several months later. For many observers, one of the most confusing aspects of the case has been the relatively limited criminal charge.
Under California law, ordinary vehicular manslaughter resulting from negligence, but not gross negligence, may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. Prosecutors have not alleged gross negligence, intoxication or intentional conduct in this case, limiting the available criminal charge despite the devastating outcome. Sengendo has pleaded not guilty.
Throughout the proceedings, prosecutors and defense attorneys have repeatedly informed the court they were attempting to resolve the case without trial. Earlier this year, Sengendo's attorneys submitted an unusual mitigation packet before any conviction or sentencing had occurred, a move prosecutors described in court as "highly unusual." Defense counsel said at the time that Sengendo was eager to accept responsibility and bring closure to the case.
The hearing now centers on a legal procedure unfamiliar to many members of the public. California's misdemeanor diversion statutes allow certain criminal proceedings to be paused before trial while a defendant completes conditions established by the court. Those conditions can include counseling, community service, restitution or other requirements tailored to the circumstances of the case.
If the defendant successfully completes diversion, the criminal case is dismissed. No judgment of guilt is entered, no sentence is imposed and the defendant generally avoids a criminal conviction.
Diversion was originally designed largely for lower-level offenses involving rehabilitation rather than incarceration. In recent years, however, California appellate courts have expanded when diversion may be considered.
A major development came in April 2026 when California's Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its decision in In re Bobo. That opinion significantly limited the circumstances under which trial courts may deny diversion in misdemeanor vehicular cases, making diversion potentially available in cases where many prosecutors and victims' families previously believed it was unavailable. Family supporters believe that ruling has dramatically changed the trajectory of Emery's case.
Thursday's hearing will likely focus less on the facts of the collision, which are largely established, and more on whether diversion would serve the interests of justice. Under California's Marsy's Law, crime victims and surviving family members have the constitutional right to be heard before courts make significant decisions affecting criminal cases.
Emery's parents, relatives, close friends and community members are expected to describe the lasting impact of her death and argue that dismissal through diversion would fail to provide meaningful accountability. Supporters have filled previous hearings wearing yellow shirts bearing Emery's name, reflecting the widespread community response that followed the crash.
Emery's death also helped spark the grassroots organization Safe Streets Encinitas, which has advocated for roadway improvements, expanded traffic enforcement and legislation encouraging greater use of automated red-light cameras throughout California.
The case has drawn additional public attention because of Sengendo's longstanding reputation in North County. Originally from Uganda, Sengendo has worked for years as a tennis professional and founded the Kimera Orphanage, a charitable organization supporting children in Uganda. Through fundraising events and donations, the organization has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and operate a campus serving vulnerable children. Defense attorneys have highlighted Sengendo's charitable work as part of their mitigation efforts.
For Emery's family, however, the hearing remains focused on accountability for the events of April 25, 2025. Whether the court ultimately grants diversion could determine whether the case ends without a criminal conviction, or proceeds toward sentencing following a plea or trial.
Thursday's hearing may therefore represent the final opportunity for Emery's family to persuade the court that the death of their daughter warrants traditional criminal consequences rather than diversion.
Originally published on July 11, 2026.
