Criminal procedure: information.

A new Section 1 was added stating that, notwithstanding the In re Estrada retroactivity rule, the act applies only to cases in which the preliminary hearing occurred on or after the operative date of the act. This limits the bill to future cases and prevents it from applying retroactively.

The bill's stated scope expanded from amending only Sections 739, 871.5, and 1009 of the Penal Code to also amending Sections 995, 999a, and 1510, broadening the procedural framework for challenging and reinstating charges.

A new amendment to Penal Code Section 995 (new subdivision (c)) requires that, in felony cases where the defendant was held to answer on at least one count, the district attorney must file a motion seeking leave to charge an offense dismissed at the preliminary hearing due to lack of reasonable or probable cause before filing an information reinstating that offense. The court may only grant the motion if it finds the offense was committed and there is sufficient reasonable or probable cause.

A new amendment to Penal Code Section 999a (new subdivision (b)) requires that a writ of prohibition challenging a commitment on an information without reasonable or probable cause must be filed in the appellate court within 15 days after a motion under Section 995(c) to reinstate an offense has been granted by the trial court.

A new amendment to Penal Code Section 1510 (new subdivision (b)) provides that the granting of a motion under Section 995(c) may be reviewed prior to trial only if the defendant files a motion for review no later than 60 days following arraignment on the information or indictment, unless the defendant was unaware of the issue or had no opportunity to raise it.

The state-mandated local program reimbursement section was renumbered from Section 5 to Section 7 to accommodate the insertion of three new sections.

Section 739(a) is expanded so that an information may charge not only offenses named in the order of commitment, but also offenses shown by evidence presented at the preliminary examination that were not discharged by the magistrate. This broadens prosecutorial charging authority beyond the strict commitment order.

Section 871.5(c) adds an exception to the prohibition on refiling a dismissed action after a lost motion: the prohibition does not apply 'as provided in Section 1387.1 when an individual count or counts alleging such an offense are dismissed by a magistrate.' This creates a pathway for prosecutors to refile certain individual counts even after an unsuccessful reinstatement motion.

Section 739(b) clarifies that the motion-to-reinstate requirement applies specifically to offenses that are both not named in the order of commitment AND discharged by the magistrate at the preliminary examination, narrowing the trigger for when a motion is required.

Section 1009 corrects a duplicated word ('accusation accusation' becomes 'accusation') from the Assembly version. This is a drafting error fix with no policy impact.

Section 739(a) was narrowed: the introduced version allowed an information to charge 'any offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have been committed,' but the amendment limits it to only 'the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment.' This significantly reduces prosecutorial discretion after a preliminary hearing.

Gender-neutral language changes throughout Section 871.5: 'his or her' replaced with 'their' in multiple places (transcript delivery, waiver of magistrate commitment, adoption of record for Section 995 motion).

Oxford comma added in Section 1009: 'indictment, accusation or information' changed to 'indictment, accusation, or information' and 'accusation or information' changed to 'accusation, or information.'

Typo fix in Section 871.5(a): 'an action action' corrected to 'an action.'