Legislation - California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

Legislation

Legislative » Donate Online

CACJ is committed to providing the criminal defense bar with a much-needed voice on legislative matters. Without the tireless efforts of our CACJ lobbyist, Ignacio Hernandez, and his staff at Hernandez Strategy Group, CACJ would not be able to accomplish these momentous tasks. Ignacio Hernandez provides continuous and aggressive representation before the California legislature on issues of importance to the criminal defense bar. Please contact our Legislative Committee with any questions.

California Proposition 25, Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum

Too many people are kept in jail pre-trial. But is Prop 25 the right reform? CACJ says “No” and the reasons are laid out in this statement of opposition. Vote “No” on 25!

Money bail necessarily discriminates against people of limited means. The way California courts have applied our statutory bail system has also discriminated against people of color. CACJ has long advocated reform to the system of pre-trial release, and our opposition to money bail as the exclusive means to secure relief where the court denies an OR is well known. But the reform initially proposed in SB 10 was hijacked, and the final version establishes a system of pre-trial detention, and requires use of risk assessment tools which are increasingly shown to perpetuate racial discrimination in release decisions. CACJ believes we must do better on the reforms, to protect liberty and create a fair system for all. See our full position and vote No on 25.

Read the Press Release here

Legislation - 2022

Every year, CACJ sponsors, supports and opposes a myriad of criminal justice bills. In 2022, the Legislative Committee’s efforts totally eclipsed those of years past.

CACJ Bills:
Sponsored 1 bill | Priority Supported 3 bills | Supported 33 bills | Opposed 44 bills

The list of new laws is simply too long to list here. Of these amazing successes, here are a few of our favorites:

CACJ Priority Support & Signed by the Governor

AB 2644 (Holden) Custodial Interrogation

Prohibits law enforcement from using threats, physical harm, deception, or psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics during an interrogation of a person 25 years of age or younger.

CACJ Support & Signed by the Governor

AB 1598 (Davies) Controlled substances: paraphernalia: controlled substance testing

AB 1803 (Jones-Sawyer) Court fees: ability to pay

AB 1924 (Gipson) Criminal law: certificate of rehabilitation

AB 1981 (Lee) Jury duty

AB 2167 (Kalra) Crimes: alternatives to incarceration

AB 2169 (Gipson) Criminal procedure

AB 2195 (Jones-Sawyer) Crimes: nuisance

AB 2229 (Rivas, Luz) Peace officers: minimum standards: bias evaluation

AB 2361 (Bonta, Mia) Juveniles: transfer to court of criminal jurisdiction

AB 2417 (Ting) Juveniles: Youth Bill of Rights

AB 2629 (Santiago) Juveniles: dismissals

AB 2657 (Stone) Incarcerated person’s competence

AB 2658 (Bauer-Kahan) Juveniles: electronic monitoring

AB 2761 (McCarty) Deaths while in law enforcement custody: reporting

AB 2799 (Jones-Sawyer) Evidence: admissibility of creative expressions

SB 990 (Hueso D) Corrections: county of release

SB 1106 (Wiener) Criminal resentencing: restitution

SB 1117 (Becker D) State Public Defender: grants

SB 1139 (Kamlager) Prisons: visitation

SB 1209 (Eggman) Sentencing: members of military: trauma

Legislation - 2021

In the midst of a global pandemic the California Legislature has recalibrated its legislative process multiple times. Closing the State Capitol to almost all members of the public, remote committee testimony, and unpredictable revenue projections have resulted in an unorthodox and at times, make it up as you go, legislative cycle. Despite this procedural turbulence over the past 15 months the California Legislature found a way to continue passing laws and delivering a state budget. As California puts the emergency pandemic orders behind it, the state legislature passed an historic budget; reflecting an unprecedented surge in finances due in part to economic improvement and infusion of billions in federal dollars. Simultaneously in 2021 legislators continue to churn out legislation to address major policy issues. Despite a self-imposed cap on the number of bills permitted to go through the legislative process, a long list of criminal justice reform bills were introduced this year, including approximately 24 proposals that incorporate some form of resentencing authorization for those currently incarcerated. While not all of these bills will successfully complete the process, we expect 2021 to result in the adoption of many significant criminal justice reforms.

CACJ’s legislative team, its 40+ member Legislative Committee and its lobbyists at the Hernandez Strategy Group have maintained a steady hand to craft a 2021 legislative program that could emerge as one of our most successful in years. On the heels of sponsoring 2020’s AB 3070 to address racial bias in the use of peremptory challenges, CACJ is the lead sponsor of 3 pieces of legislation and co-sponsor of several others. As the Legislature continues with the second half of its session, most of CACJ's bills remain in play and things are looking hopeful for positive outcomes. Below is a list of CACJ's sponsored legislation that remain alive, as well as, other key criminal justice reforms that are still being debated by the California legislature.

CACJ Sponsored Legislation

AB 1228 (Lee) - Is it the end of "No-Bail" probation violation holds in California?

For far too long courts have ordered countless individuals to temporary incarceration while they await the date of their probation violation hearing. These "no-bail" holds have been imposed with impunity, often upending our clients lives simply because it can take several weeks before a courtroom is available to conduct probation revocation hearings. Or far worse, many people simply choose to agreed to a violation to speed up the clock and get released from jail a little bit earlier. Under either scenario, individuals are finding themselves in custody unable to obtain release in contradiction to key legal principles. AB 1228 recasts existing law and directs courts to explore a wide variety of release options before a judge can order someone to jail time while they are simply waiting for their revocation hearing. The legislation defaults to OR as the first option for many cases, while permitting a judge to explore the imposition of conditions of release if relevant factors demand such limitations. These conditions could include a mandate for a monitoring device or required check-ins with probation. Additionally, a court is authorized to impose bail pursuant to Humphrey-type restrictions, which include setting individualized bail as described in the recent California Supreme Court decision regarding bail. The interplay of AB 1228 and Humphrey results in a very thoughtful and balanced approach to decisions on whether to release someone for the few weeks between an allegation of a probation violation and the actual hearing date on the violation. Assembly member Alex Lee (Milpitas/San Jose) the author of AB 1228, is a first-year legislator who has already established himself as a leader on criminal justice reform (and most progressive issues). He sits on the Assembly Public Safety Committee and is also a member of the Penal Code Revision committee. AB 1228 has passed the Assembly and is in the State Senate awaiting action.

AB 518 (Wicks) - Will judicial discretion be returned to Penal Code?

This bill, authored by Assembly member Buffy Wicks (Oakland), would restore a judge's discretion to choose the sentence that best fits the crime when a person is convicted of more than one offense committed in a single act. Judges in California had this discretion until 1997, when at the height of the tough on crime era, the legislature decided to further constrain judges in these instances. Current law ensures that individuals convicted in these instances are given the longest potential term of imprisonment. This mandatory sentencing structure completely ignores the individual circumstances of each case, which very well might warrant a lesser of multiple sentences. Even if a judge believes that a shorter sentence would better rehabilitate a defendant, like for certain youth offenders, they are forced needlessly to punish them under the harshest sentence. AB 518 would finally put an end to this by restoring the law to what it was prior to 1997, giving judges the discretion they need to give proper sentences. It is important to note that the 1997 law was passed when Republicans temporarily outnumbered Democrats in the Assembly and tough sentencing was in fashion. AB 518 was passed by the Assembly and recently passed out of the Senate Public Safety Committee moving it closer to becoming law.

SB 567 (Bradford) - 14 years after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cunningham, will California finally get it right?

In 2007 the United State Supreme Court issued its decision in People v. Cunningham, a case emerging from California and focused on the constitutionality of the state's tiered felony sentencing law. Since the adoption of the determinate sentencing law in the 1970's, California has operated a three tiered felony sentencing structure with upper, mid and lower terms. At the outset, the middle term was always the presumed term -- in part to bring uniformity to sentencing practices that had been disproportionately skewed along racial lines for many years --- and the upper term was reserved for cases in which aggravating facts existed. Over the decades this law was in effect, judges were the arbiters of which facts were presumed to be true and utilized to justify the imposition of an upper term. In 2007 however, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that California's practices was unconstitutional as it violated the right to a jury trial. Judges were not legally authorized to decide facts in a case - that is the legal purview of juries alone. When the Cunningham opinion was released, defense attorneys and prosecutors scrambled to decide how to handle sentencing while California law was invalidated. Some argued that based on the decision, courts were only statutorily authorized to impose the middle terms; some attorneys argued, successfully, that only the lower term was available. In the State Capitol CACJ was busy lobbying for a new law that codified the key principles of the Cunningham ruling: a presumed middle term remains and at a sentencing hearing judges are authorized to only consider aggravating facts that had been presented to a jury and determined to be true. Prosecutors and others argued for an alternative approach, one that would simply authorize judges to impose the upper term at their own discretion, notwithstanding if aggravating facts had been proven true. Ultimately, after very intense debate, the Legislature capitulated to the wishes of prosecutors. The felony sentencing law was rewritten to grant judges the power to impose any of the three terms within their "sound discretion." The legislation went even further and redefined aggravating "facts" to "factors" or circumstances, removing the basis for presenting the FACTS to a jury as a prerequisite consideration by a judge at sentencing. CACJ spent countless hours lobbying against this law, and in favor of it's own approach, and while ultimately the prosecutors prevailed, CACJ did succeed in securing a "sunset" to the law, meaning that the law would expire after just a few years giving the legislature an opportunity to reconsider its decision. This "sunset" was CACJ's idea and was an attempt to prop up what many considered a Quixiotic fight to rewrite the law to track more closely the Cunningham decision. Keep in mind that in 2007 the legislature's criminal justice form personality had not fully developed; CACJ was playing defense legislatively much more often than actually proposing reform bills since the legislature simply would not pass them. At that time the Legislature was at the initial phase of trying to slow down prison expansion, and not anywhere near ready to take down the vestiges of the tough-on-crime era. The "sunset" provision also served to give future legislatures, when more progressive mindsets would be more prevalent among the general public, an opportunity to review the felony triad law. While the sunset has been extended multiple times, each time CACJ remained steadfast in its argument that it should not be made permanent - and CACJ was successful each time. This brings us to 2021 - a year when the Legislature is in full criminal justice reform mode, and has for several years significantly rolled back draconian sentencing laws; needless to say it's a much more receptive legislature to CACJ's ideas. Senator Steve Bradford (Gardena), a prior recipient of the CACJ legislator of the year for his authorship of one of the first ever roll back of felony sentencing law in California (another CACJ-sponsored bill) agreed to author SB 567 which would finally conform California law to the Cunningham decision. While there are no definitive studies on the issue, it appears that since 2007 judges are either defaulting to the process outlined in SB 567 -- which is consistent with the original intent of the determinate sentencing law -- or they are imposing upper terms without the justification of aggravating facts that had been proven true, thereby leading to unnecessarily long sentences. Either way, SB 567 will bring stability and consistency to our sentencing laws. SB 567 was passed by the State Senate and is making its way through the State Assembly process.

CACJ Co-Sponsored Legislation

AB 1259 (Chiu) - Will immigrants be protected from deportation based on invalid convictions?

US immigration law designates certain offenses as deportable offenses, and unfortunately, many individuals convicted of one of these offenses are unaware of the adverse immigration consequences that may be associated with these convictions. In 2016, CACJ co-sponsored a bill to establish a post-conviction relief mechanism for a person to vacate a conviction based on an error damaging their ability to understand these immigration consequences. While this new law was a step in the right direction, relief was limited to only those entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. This bill, authored by Assembly member Chiu (San Francisco) would expand this legal remedy to all individuals who suffered invalid convictions, including those convicted in a jury trial. AB 1259 was passed by the Assembly and is in the Senate awaiting action.

SB 81 (Skinner) - Will judges receive guidance on when to dismiss sentence enhancements?

Judges are allowed to dismiss sentencing enhancements "in the furtherance of justice" under current law. Unfortunately, there is no guidance in law on how judges can properly exercise this discretion. This lack of clarity has led to more individuals serving longer sentences that are unjustifiable. Research reviewed last year by the state's Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code found that the dismissal of enhancements occurred inconsistently and was underused. This bill, authored by Senator Skinner (Berkeley), would provide guidance to judges by specifying what circumstances a court should consider when applying enhancements, and clearly outlining under what circumstances an enhancement should be dismissed. For example an enhancement should be dismissed if it would result in a disparate racial impact or if an enhancement would result in a sentence of over 20 years. SB 81 passed the Senate and it awaiting action in the Assembly.

SB 775 (Becker) - After changing the felony murder rule, will California finally remove its remnants?

In 2018, California changed its felony-murder doctrine, which originally allowed any person who participated in a felony that resulted in a killing to be charged with murder. The law was changed so that participants in a felony could only be charged with murder under specific circumstances, like if they were the actual killer or acted with indifference to human life. Unfortunately, these changes left a gap in the law which allowed individuals convicted of first or second degree murder under the felony murder rule to seek a recall of their sentence but did not extend the same relief to individuals convicted of manslaughter or attempted murder. This bill, authored by Senator Becker (Menlo Park), brings parity to the law, ensuring that individuals convicted of these lesser crimes can also seek a recall of their sentence under the same standards. SB 775 passed the Senate and is awaiting action in the Assembly.

Criminal Justice Reform

AB 333 (Kamlager) - Gang Enhancements

AB 333 or the "STEP Forward Act", presented by the recently elected Senator Kamlager from Los Angeles, focuses on reducing the list of crimes that allow gang enhancements to be charged. California’s gang enhancement laws have caused immense damage to Black and Latino communities by criminalizing culture and relationships among people in low-income areas. Gang enhancements have not been an effective method of deterring crime or violence, and have been applied inconsistently and disproportionately against people of color. The vague definitions and weak standards of proof that characterize gang enhancements have made their use as one of the most devastating drivers of mass incarceration in the state. Additionally, these enhancements are responsible for the collective trauma of countless families and communities. AB 333 seeks to address these harms by making changes to the law in order to reduce their damaging and racially motivated application in criminal cases, and making the standards for applying a gang enhancement more challenging. AB 333 passed the Assembly and is awaiting action in the Senate.

AB 624 (Bauer-Kahan) - The "Youth Fair Process Act"

The "Youth Fair Process Act" or AB 624, by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, will enhance the current system of appellate review for juvenile court orders transferring youth from juvenile court for prosecution in adult court. Despite the enormous consequence of transfer for prosecution in adult court, California law provides no right to appeal a judge’s decision transferring a child’s case from juvenile court to adult court for prosecution. The consequences include harsher punishments which include life in prison and enduring developmental costs. Instead, a child must seek review by filing a petition for writ of mandate and most petitions seeking review of transfer decisions are denied summarily. The failure to provide a right to appeal is an outdated accident of history. Additionally, it is out-of-step with practice in the majority of other states, which provide for an expedited right to appeal a transfer to adult court, prior to the commencement of a criminal prosecution in adult court. AB 624 will allow California to provide the youth the right to appeal an adverse transfer decision. AB 624 passed the Assembly and is awaiting action in the Senate.

AB 1474 (Gabriel) - How much does it cost to incarcerate a person?

Assembly Bill 1474, presented by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, would require disclosure to the public of the true costs of incarcerating a person sentenced to jail or prison, as well as, the true costs of probation and parole.

Despite the recent spike on criminal justice reform, California currently spends more on corrections than Texas and New York combined. This excessive spending on corrections has stunted the growth of other public policy priorities such as education, housing, human services, public health, etc. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimate the cost of imprisoning one person in 2018-19 at $81,203 per year. However, this sum does not include the cost of post-incarceration supervision, and it does not address the costs of county jail sentences or probation supervision. AB 1474 would provide this information and demonstrate how much more expensive it is to imprison someone than to provide that person rehabilitation services through probation or other noncustodial supervision. Also, the bill will remind decision-makers, including voters, of the financial consequences of imprisonment. AB 1474 passed the Assembly and will be making its way to the Senate Public Safety Committee on June 29th.

SB 483 (Allen) - Removal of Sentencing Enhancement

Until January 1, 2018, California required a sentencing court to impose on a defendant convicted of specified crimes related to controlled substances, an additional three-year term for each prior conviction of specified crimes related to controlled substances. Also, existing prior law required a sentencing court to impose an additional one-year term of imprisonment for each prior prison or county jail felony term served by the defendant for a non-violent felony. The elimination of the three-year sentencing enhancements under Health & Safety Code section 11370.2 and the one-year prison prior enhancements under Penal Code section 667.5 were major steps forward in undoing the harmful effects of the war on drugs and the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders. However, the prior legislation ending these enhancements were prospective only. SB 483 will repeal sentence enhancements for prior prison or county jail felony terms and for prior convictions of specified crimes related to controlled substances. SB 483 passed the Senate and is awaiting action in the Assembly.

SB 731 (Durazo) Criminal Records Relief

California still maintains their criminal records until the person reaches 100 years of age. And as we increase the usage of background checks in today's society, the availability of these records trigger a numerous amount of barriers for a quarter of the state's population. The upkeep of these records results into major issues such as housing insecurities and unemployment, and these consequences disproportionately affect Black and Latino communities and have become one of the leading drivers of multigenerational poverty. Senator Durazo plans on championing a quarter of the state's population after introducing Senate Bill 731, which will permit additional relief by way of withdrawing a plea and deleting arrest records for the purpose of most criminal background checks. SB 731 passed the Senate and is awaiting action in the Assembly.

Legislation - 2020 & AB 3070

CACJ’s sponsored bill AB 3070 brings a sea-change in jury selection challenges, replacing the Batson procedure.

AB 3070 (Weber) Juries: peremptory challenges.

The courts have long recognized that the constitution prohibits use of peremptory challenges to seat a racially biased jury. But the Batson procedure has failed as a tool to prevent invidious discrimination. This CACJ sponsored bill enacts a completely new procedure designed to truly balance the composition of trial juries.

Last Year the Berkeley Death Penalty clinic published the report Whitewashing the Jury Box, How California Perpetuates the Discriminatory Exclusion of Black and Latinx Jurors. CACJ took this new information to the legislature, and sponsored AB 3070 (Assemblymember Weber). We shepherded the bill through an extraordinary session to the Governor’s desk, and Newsom signed it on September 30. The press release provides more information, and look for an article by Elias Batchelder in the next edition of the FORUM (# 46.2) with suggestions about how to use the reform before the statute becomes effective in 2022.

Signed by the Governor 9-30-2020

Read the Press Release here

CACJ takes position on 100+ bills every year, the bills below are the Sponsored, Co-Sponsored, and Supported bills for 2020:

Supported Bills

AB 723 (Bonta) County jails: prisons: incarcerated pregnant persons.

Would require an incarcerated person in a county jail or the state prison who is identified as possibly pregnant or capable of becoming pregnant during an intake health examination or at any time during incarceration to be offered a test upon intake or request, and in the case of a county jail, within 72 hours of arrival at the jail. The bill would require an incarcerated person who is confirmed to be pregnant to be scheduled for pregnancy examination with a physician, nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, or physician assistant within 7 days. The bill would require incarcerated pregnant persons to be scheduled for prenatal care visits, as specified.

Status: 9/8/2020-Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.

AB 846 (Bonta) Public employment: public officers or employees declared by law to be peace officers.

Current law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training within the Department of Justice to perform various functions involving the training of peace officers. Current law requires peace officers in this state to meet specified minimum standards, including, among other requirements, that peace officers be evaluated by a physician and surgeon or psychologist and found to be free from any physical, emotional, or mental condition that might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer. This bill would require that evaluation to include bias against race or ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.

Status: 8/31/2020-Action rescinded whereby the bill was re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2. Ordered to the unfinished business file. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling.

AB 901 (Gipson D) Juveniles.

In a county that has not elected to participate in a truancy mediation program, current law authorizes the county superintendent of schools to petition the juvenile court on behalf of a pupil for proper disposition of a case. In a county that has not established a school attendance review board, existing law authorizes the school district to notify the district attorney or probation officer, as specified, that available community resources cannot resolve the problem of truancy or insubordination. This bill would eliminate the authority of the county superintendent of schools to petition the juvenile court on behalf of a pupil, as described above, in a county that has not elected to participate in a truancy mediation program.

Status: 8/31/2020-Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 5 p.m.

AB 904 (Chau D) Search warrants: tracking devices.

Current law authorizes a search warrant to be issued upon specified grounds, including that the information to be received from the use of a tracking device constitutes evidence that tends to show that a felony or specified misdemeanors has been committed or is being committed, tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony or those specified misdemeanors, or will assist in locating an individual who has committed or is committing a felony or those specified misdemeanors. Current law defines tracking device for these purposes as any electronic or mechanical device that permits the tracking of the movement of a person or object.This bill would specify that a tracking device includes any software that permits the tracking of the movement of a person or object.

Status: 9/8/2020-Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.

AB 1145 (Garcia, Cristina D) Child abuse: reportable conduct.

The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act requires a mandated reporter, as defined, to make a report to a specified agency whenever the mandated reporter, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect. Current law provides that “child abuse or neglect” for these purposes includes “sexual assault,”. This bill would provide that “sexual assault” for these purposes does not include voluntary sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration, if there are no indicators of abuse, unless that conduct is between a person who is 21 years of age or older and a minor who is under 16 years of age.

Status: 9/4/2020-Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.

AB 1185 (McCarty D) County board of supervisors: sheriff oversight.

Current law establishes the office of the sheriff in each county to preserve peace, and authorizes the sheriff to sponsor, supervise, or participate in any project of crime prevention, rehabilitation of persons previously convicted of crime, or the suppression of delinquency. Current law requires a board of supervisors to supervise the official conduct of all county officers and ensure that they faithfully perform their duties. This bill would authorize a county to establish a sheriff oversight board to assist the board of supervisors with those duties as they relate to the sheriff, either by action of the board of supervisors or through a vote of county residents.

Status: 8/31/2020-Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling.

AB 1196 (Gipson D) Peace officers: use of force.

Current law requires law enforcement agencies to maintain a policy on the use of force, as specified. Current law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the regular and periodic training of law enforcement officers in the use of force. This bill would prohibit a law enforcement agency from authorizing the use of a carotid restraint or a choke hold, as defined.

AB 1506 (McCarty D) Police use of force.

Current law requires law enforcement agencies to maintain a policy on the use of force, as specified. Current law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the regular and periodic training of law enforcement officers in the use of force.This bill would create a division within the Department of Justice to, upon the request of a law enforcement agency, review the use-of-force policy of the agency and make recommendations, as specified.

AB 1950 (Kamlager D) Probation: length of terms.

Current law authorizes courts that have jurisdiction in misdemeanor cases to suspend the sentence and make and enforce terms of probation in those cases, for a period not to exceed 3 years, except when the period of the maximum sentence imposed by law exceeds 3 years, in which case the terms of probation may be imposed for a longer period than 3 years, but not to exceed the time for which the person may be imprisoned. This bill would instead restrict the period of probation for a misdemeanor to no longer than one year, except as specified.

Status: 8/27/2020-Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m.

AB 2019 (Holden) Pupil instruction: College and Career Access Pathways partnerships: county offices of education.

This bill would expand dual enrollment opportunities to pupils in juvenile court schools by allowing county offices of education to enter into partnerships with community college districts.

Status: Assembly Higher Education Committee

AB 2077 (Ting D) Hypodermic needles and syringes.

Current law prohibits, except as specified, the sale of a hypodermic needle or syringe at retail except upon the prescription of a physician, dentist, veterinarian, podiatrist, or naturopathic doctor.This bill would repeal that provision.

Status: 9/4/2020-Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.

AB 2105 (Quirk-Silva) Criminal procedure: competence to stand trial.

This bill would authorize a court to order a defendant who is charged with a felony and who is not in the custody of the sheriff to self-surrender to a State Department of State Hospitals facility at a specific date and time.

Status: Assembly Appropriations Committee

AB 2147 (Reyes) Convictions: expungement: inmate hand crews.

Current law authorizes a court to allow a defendant sentenced to county jail for a felony to withdraw their plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty, after the lapse of one or 2 years following the defendant’s completion of the sentence, provided that the defendant is not under supervision, and is not serving a sentence for, on probation for, or charged with the commission of any offense. Current law requires the defendant to be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which the defendant was convicted, except as specified. This bill would allow a defendant who successfully participated in the California Conservation Camp Program or a county incarcerated individual hand crew as an incarcerated individual hand crew member, and has been released from custody, to petition to withdraw their plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty. The bill would make persons convicted of specified violent felonies and sex offenses ineligible for relief.

Status: 8/30/2020-Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 30. Noes 0.). In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling.

AB 2205 (Jones-Sawyer) Board of State and Community Corrections: membership.

This bill would add two additional members to the Board of State and Community Corrections, including a member of the public with a record of a felony conviction.

Status: Assembly Public Safety Committee

AB 2321 (Jones-Sawyer) Juvenile court records: access.

Current law requires the juvenile court to order the petition of a minor who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court dismissed if the minor satisfactorily completes a term of probation or an informal program of supervision, as specified, and requires the court to seal all records pertaining to that dismissed petition in the custody of the juvenile court and in the custody of law enforcement agencies, the probation department, or the Department of Justice in accordance with a specified procedure. Current law also generally authorizes a person who is the subject of a juvenile court record, or the county probation officer, to petition the court to seal the person’s records, including records of arrest, relating to the person’s case in the custody of the juvenile court and the probation officer and any other agencies, including law enforcement agencies and public officials. This bill would authorize a judge or prosecutor to access specified sealed records under these provisions for the limited purpose of processing the request of a victim or victim’s family member to certify victim helpfulness on specified United States Department of Homeland Security forms.

Status: 8/30/2020-Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling.

AB 2325 (Carrillo) Child support: suspension.

Prior law, until January 1, 2020, suspended a money judgment or order for child support for any period exceeding 90 consecutive days in which the person ordered to pay support was incarcerated or involuntarily institutionalized, except as specified. Under that law, a suspended child support obligation resumed on the first day of the first full month after the release of the person owing the child support. This bill, until January 1, 2023, would reenact those repealed provisions. The bill would also require the Department of Child Support Services, in consultation with the Judicial Council, to develop forms to implement these provisions by January 1, 2022.

Status: 8/30/2020-Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 37. Noes 1.). In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling.

AB 3234 (Ting D) Public Safety.

Would authorize a judge in the superior court in which a misdemeanor is being prosecuted to offer misdemeanor diversion to a defendant over the objection of a prosecuting attorney, except as specified. The bill would authorize the judge to continue a diverted case for a period not to exceed 24 months and order the defendant to comply with the terms, conditions, and programs the judge deems appropriate based on the defendant’s specific situation. The bill would require the judge, at the end of the diversion period and if the defendant complies with all required terms, conditions, and programs, to dismiss the action against the defendant, and would deem the arrest upon which diversion was imposed to have never occurred, as specified.

Status: 8/31/2020-Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 27. Noes 10.). In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling.

AB 2338 (Weber) Courts: contempt orders.

Would permit the court to grant probation or a conditional sentence, as defined, in lieu of an order for community service, imprisonment, or both, for a party found in contempt for failure to comply with a court order pursuant to the Family Code.

Status: 8/31/2020-Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 5 p.m.

AB 2342 (McCarty D) Parole.

Would create a program under which the length of a parolee’s period of parole could be reduced through credits earned by successfully completing specified education, training, or treatment programs, or by participating in volunteer service, while adhering to the conditions of parole. The bill would make this program inapplicable to a person who is required to register as a sex offender. The bill would, if AB 1304 is enacted, additionally require this program to award credits for participation in substance abuse treatment programs, as specified.

Status: 8/31/2020-Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling.

AB 2542 (Kalra D) Criminal procedure: discrimination.

Would prohibit the state from seeking a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin, as specified. The bill would allow a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis of that prohibition, and would require the defendant to appear at the evidentiary hearing by video unless their presence in court is needed. The bill would permit a defendant to file a motion requesting disclosure of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of that prohibition that is in the possession or control of the prosecutor and would require a court, upon a showing of good cause, to order those records to be released. The bill would authorize a court that finds a violation of that prohibition to impose a specified remedy. The bill would apply its provisions to adjudications and dispositions in the juvenile delinquency system. The bill would apply its provisions only prospectively to cases in which judgment has not been entered prior to January 1, 2021.

Status: 8/31/2020-Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 26. Noes 10.). In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. Assembly Rule 63 suspended. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling.

AB 2425 (Stone, Mark D) Juvenile police records.

Would prohibit a law enforcement agency in any county from releasing a copy of a juvenile police record if the subject of the juvenile police record is (1) a minor who has been diverted by police officers from arrest, citation, detention, or referral to probation or any district attorney and who is currently participating in a diversion program or who has satisfactorily completed a diversion program, (2) a minor who has been counseled and released by police officers without an arrest, citation, detention, or referral to probation or any district attorney, or (3) a minor who does not fall within the jurisdiction of the juvenile delinquency court under current state law, except as specified. The bill would require the law enforcement agency in possession of the juvenile police record to seal the applicable juvenile police records and all other records in its custody relating to the minor’s law enforcement contact or referral and participation in a diversion program, as specified.

Status: 8/30/2020-Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling.

AB 2426 (Reyes D) Victims of crime.

Current state law requires, upon request by specified persons, that a certifying official from a certifying entity, as defined, certify “victim helpfulness” or “victim cooperation” on those supplemental forms, respectively, when the requester was a victim of a qualifying criminal activity or human trafficking, and has, is, or is likely to be helpful or cooperative regarding the investigation or prosecution of that qualifying criminal activity, as specified. Current law requires the certifying entity to process those supplemental forms within 30 days of the request, unless the noncitizen is in removal proceedings, in which case the certification is required to be processed within 7 days of the request. This bill would clarify that a certifying entity includes the police department of the University of California, a California State University campus, or a school district.

Status: 8/31/2020-Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling.

AB 2427 (Gipson) Elections: voter registration.

This bill would encourage community organizations to conduct voter registration drives in county jails, by requiring counties to have relevant policies. This bill would also require county elections officials to notify people released from parole that they have regained their eligibility to vote.

Status: Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee

AB 2512 (Stone, Mark D) Death penalty: person with an intellectual disability.

Current law requires the court to order a hearing to determine whether the defendant has an intellectual disability upon the submission of a declaration by a qualified expert stating the expert’s opinion that the defendant is a person with an intellectual disability. Current law defines “intellectual disability” for these purposes as a condition of significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested before 18 years of age. This bill would change the definition of “intellectual disability” to include conditions that manifest before the end of the developmental period, as defined by clinical standards.

Status: 9/4/2020-Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.

AB 2865 (Wicks) Juveniles: transfer to court of criminal jurisdiction.

This bill would require juvenile courts to conclude that a minor would not be amenable to rehabilitation through the juvenile court before transferring the minor to a court of criminal jurisdiction.

Status: Assembly Public Safety Committee

AB2978 (Ting) Department of Justice: arrest and conviction records: review.

This bill would expand to any arrest or conviction occurring on or after January 1, 1973 the requirement that the Department of Justice, on a monthly basis, review the records in the statewide criminal justice databases and to identify persons who are eligible for arrest record relief or automatic conviction record relief by having their arrest records, or their criminal conviction records, withheld from disclosure or modified.

Status: Assembly Public Safety Committee

SB 145 (Wiener D) Sex offenders: registration.

The Sex Offender Registration Act, requires a person convicted of one of certain crimes, as specified, to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California, as specified. A willful failure to register, as required by the act, is a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the underlying offense.This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.

Status: 9/8/2020-Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.

SB 203 (Bradford D) Juveniles: custodial interrogation.

Current law requires, until January 1, 2025, that a youth 15 years of age or younger consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video conference prior to a custodial interrogation and before waiving any specified rights. Existing law directs a court deciding the admissibility of statements made by a youth 15 years of age or younger during or after a custodial interrogation to consider the effects of failing to provide counsel before the custodial interrogation. Current law directs the Governor to convene a panel of experts to examine the effects and outcomes of these provisions, including the appropriate age of youth to whom these provisions should apply. This bill would instead apply these provisions to a youth 17 years of age or younger, and would indefinitely extend the operation of these provisions.

Status: 9/9/2020-Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

SB 592 (Wiener D) Jury service.

The Trial Jury Selection and Management Act requires all persons be selected for jury service at random and from sources inclusive of a representative cross section of the population of the area served by the court. The act specifies that the list of registered voters and list of licensed drivers and identification cardholders who are resident within the area served by the court are appropriate source lists for the selection of jurors, and further specifies that these 2 source lists, when substantially purged of duplicate names, are considered inclusive of a representative cross section of the population.This bill would deem the list of resident state tax filers as an appropriate source list for selection of jurors, and beginning on January 1, 2022, would deem the list of resident state tax filers, when substantially purged of duplicate names, to be considered inclusive of a representative cross section of the population, along with the two source lists described above.

Status: 9/9/2020-Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

SB938 (Wiener) Trial testimony: expert witnesses: writ of habeas corpus.

This bill would expand the definition of false evidence in cases of false incarceration and would prevent experts from relying on circular logic in their court testimony.