Existing law requires a person, who claims title to a firearm that is in the custody of a court or law enforcement agency and wishes to have it returned, to make an application for a determination by the Department of Justice as to whether the applicant is eligible to possess a firearm. Under existing law, a law enforcement agency or court that has taken custody of a firearm is prohibited from returning the firearm to an individual unless specified requirements are met, including, but not limited to, requiring the person to be eligible to possess a firearm and verifying that the firearm is not listed as stolen and the firearm has been recorded in the Automated Firearms System in the name of the person, as specified. Existing law requires any weapon that was carried unlawfully for specified crimes to be surrendered to specified law enforcement entities. Existing law requires weapons surrendered pursuant to these provisions to be destroyed by the law enforcement entity. This bill would authorize a law enforcement agency, as defined, to create a voluntary firearm storage program that allows a person to voluntarily transfer custody of their firearm to the local law enforcement agency for temporary safekeeping purposes to prevent firearm violence, suicide, and other injury. The bill would require a law enforcement agency adopting this program to provide clear instructions on the procedure to voluntarily transfer custody of a firearm and to provide clear instructions on the process for requesting return of the firearm, as specified. Upon receipt of a firearm, the bill would require a law enforcement agency to, among other things, check a certain database to ensure the firearm has not previously been reported lost, stolen, or involved in a crime and ensure that the requesting person is eligible to possess firearms when the firearm is returned to the person. The bill would require a law enforcement agency to destroy a firearm that a person failed to retrieve at the end of a time period specified by the law enforcement agency, except as provided. Existing law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm or the open carrying of a firearm, as specified. Existing law provides certain exemptions to these prohibitions, including exemptions for peace officers, retired peace officers, and persons possessing a valid license to carry a concealed firearm. Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements and subject to exceptions, that the transfer of a firearm be conducted through a firearms dealer. This bill would exempt the voluntary transfer of a firearm to a local law enforcement agency pursuant to the provisions above from these prohibitions and regulations.
Existing law provides the pleas a defendant may make to an indictment, information, or complaint charging a misdemeanor or infraction. Existing law requires defense counsel to advise a defendant about the immigration consequences of a proposed disposition, as specified. Existing law requires the prosecution to consider the avoidance of adverse immigration consequences in the plea negotiation process, as specified. This bill would instead require the prosecution to meet and confer during the negotiation process with the defense in an effort to avoid the adverse immigration consequences of a plea, conviction, or sentence. The bill would establish a rebuttable presumption of a violation of the above-described requirement if the defendant asserts facts that provide a prima facie showing that during negotiations the defendant proposed an alternative plea or sentence that would avoid adverse immigration consequences, including, among other things, an offense of greater seriousness, and the prosecution declined the offer. Upon a prima facie showing of the above-described circumstances, the bill would require the court to order a hearing and would require the prosecution to demonstrate good cause for the failure to offer a plea that would avoid adverse immigration consequences. If the court finds that the prosecuting attorney failed to establish good cause at the above-described hearing, the bill would require the court to impose an appropriate remedy, as specified. By imposing additional duties on local prosecutors, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to meet with each indeterminately sentenced inmate during the 6th year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date for the purpose of reviewing and documenting the inmate's activities and conduct pertinent to parole eligibility. One year before the inmate's minimum eligible parole date, existing law requires a panel of the board to meet with the inmate and to grant parole unless the panel or board sitting en banc determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense, or the timing and gravity of current or past convicted offenses, is such that consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for the inmate. In certain circumstances, the board will conduct an en banc review, defined as a review conducted by a majority of commissioners holding office on the date the matter is heard by the board, and existing law specifies how the en banc review is required to be conducted. Existing law authorizes the Governor to request a review of a decision by the board to grant or deny parole and, if a request has been made, existing law requires the request to be reviewed by a majority of commissioners, as specified. This bill would instead require that all commissioners participate in an en banc review and a request for review made by the Governor. The bill would also require the en banc review decision and the vote of each commissioner to be a public record. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend. Existing law authorizes certain state bodies to hold closed session meetings for certain purposes, including allowing a state body to hold a closed session when considering and acting upon the determination of a term, parole, or release of any individual or other disposition of an individual case. This bill would prohibit an en banc review conducted by the board from being held in a closed session.
Existing law authorizes a judge in a case where a misdemeanor is being prosecuted, over the objection of the prosecuting attorney, to offer diversion to the defendant. Existing law prohibits this type of diversion when, among other things, the current charged offense is willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person while making a credible threat toward that person, as specified. Existing law requires the clerk of a court, in which a person was convicted of a violation of the Vehicle Code or other specified provisions, to prepare within 5 days after conviction and immediately forward to the Department of Motor Vehicles an abstract of the record of the court covering the case in which the person was convicted. This bill would require the court, if the court grants diversion to a defendant who, if they had been convicted, would have had an abstract of record forwarded to the department pursuant to the above provisions, to instead direct that the prosecuting attorney ensure notice of the arrest or incident is provided to the department, as specified. By increasing the duties on local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte restraining order to prevent abuse based on reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. Existing law authorizes the order to be issued solely on the affidavit or testimony of the person requesting the ex parte restraining order. Existing law requires the ex parte order to be issued or denied on the same day the application is submitted to the court, except as specified. Existing law prohibits an ex parte restraining order from being denied solely because the other party was not provided with notice. This bill would instead prohibit a court from requiring that notice be provided to the party to be restrained in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order. The bill would also prohibit a court from requiring an explanation or declaration for not providing notice in advance of accepting a filing for, or deciding, an application for an ex parte restraining order. The bill would prohibit a court from adopting or maintaining any rule, form, or practice that is inconsistent with these provisions.
Existing law allows a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of their imprisonment or restraint. Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on several bases, including on the basis of false evidence that is material on the issue of guilt or punishment, as specified, or the discovery of new evidence that exists that is presented without substantial delay, is admissible, and that has not been previously presented and heard at trial and has been discovered after trial. Existing law creates a presumption in favor of granting relief through habeas when the district attorney in the county of the conviction or the Attorney General concedes or stipulates to a legal or factual basis for habeas relief. This bill would revise the above-described standards to no longer require false evidence to be material and would instead require that the evidence create any reasonable likelihood it could have affected the outcome of the case. The bill would also change the new evidence standard to instead require that there be a reasonable probability it would have produced a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the case. The bill would revise the presumption in favor of granting relief to instead make a stipulation binding on the parties, if certain conditions are met, unless the moving party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the other party violated the terms or the state withheld evidence, as specified. The bill would also revise the process for a concession and instead prohibit a party from withdrawing a concession if the concession is contained in a return or other written filing signed by counsel for respondent, as specified. Existing law allows a person who is no longer unlawfully imprisoned or restrained to prosecute a motion to vacate a judgment on the basis of newly discovered evidence of fraud by a government official that completely undermines the prosecution's case, is conclusive, and points unerringly to their innocence, newly discovered evidence that a government official testified falsely at trial that resulted in the conviction and that the testimony was substantially probative on the issue of guilt or punishment, or newly discovered evidence of misconduct by a government official committed in the underlying case that resulted in fabrication of evidence that was substantially material and probative on the issue of guilt or punishment. The bill would revise the above-described standards to instead require a demonstration that there is a reasonable probability the evidence would have produced a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the case, as specified. The bill would make other conforming changes. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2027, a party to appear remotely and a court to conduct conferences, hearings, proceedings, and trials in civil cases, in whole or in part, through the use of remote technology. This bill would extend the operation of these provisions to January 31, 2029. The bill would additionally authorize any non-party witness to appear remotely pursuant to these provisions.
Existing law makes a person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services, or to effect or maintain a violation of various felony or misdemeanor offenses, including offenses relating to prostitution, child pornography, as specified, or extortion, as defined, guilty of human trafficking. Existing law makes a person who causes, induces, or persuades, or attempts to cause, induce, or persuade, a person who is a minor at the time of commission of the offense to engage in a commercial sex act, with the intent to effect or maintain a violation of various felony or misdemeanor offenses, also guilty of human trafficking. Existing law establishes the requirements for a continuance to be granted in a criminal case, including a showing of good cause. Existing law defines "good cause" for this purpose to include, but not be limited to, cases involving specified crimes, including murder and domestic violence, and to apply when the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court. This bill would, in a case involving human trafficking, require the court, in determining if good cause for a continuance exists, to give great weight to the fact that the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court. The bill would authorize the court to grant only one continuance for a maximum of 10 additional court days for that reason. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1050 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 2052 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2052 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(1) Existing law requires a county office of education and county probation department to have a joint transition planning policy that includes collaboration with relevant local educational agencies to coordinate education and services for youth who have had contact with the juvenile justice system. Existing law requires, as part of the joint transition planning policy, the county office of education to assign transition oversight responsibilities to existing county office of education personnel who will work in collaboration with the county probation department and relevant local educational agencies to ensure that specified transition activities are completed for the pupil. This bill would require, as part of the joint transition planning policy, the school district or charter school in which the juvenile court school pupil will be enrolling to assign a staff member of that school district or charter school to serve as the point person for transition liaison responsibilities, and notify the county office of education and the county probation department of the assigned staff member's name and contact information. The bill would also require that staff member, and other personnel of the school district or charter school as needed to serve the pupil, to work in collaboration with the county office of education transition oversight personnel throughout the calendar year to ensure that the transition activities noted above are completed for the pupil. Existing law requires, for pupils detained for 20 consecutive schooldays or fewer, the pupil's individualized learning plan, if one exists, to be made available by the county office of education to the pupil upon the pupil's release. This bill would additionally require that pupil's individualized learning plan to be made available to the pupil's school district or charter school point person for transition liaison responsibilities. Existing law requires the county office of education, in collaboration with the county probation department, to establish procedures for the timely, accurate, complete, and confidential transfer of educational records, as specified. This bill would additionally require the county office of education to collaborate with relevant local educational agencies to establish those procedures. By imposing additional requirements on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires local educational agencies to issue full or partial credit on an official transcript for all full or partial coursework satisfactorily completed by pupil in foster care, a pupil who is a homeless child or youth, a former juvenile court school pupil, a pupil who is a child of a military family, a pupil who is a migratory child, or a newcomer pupil, while attending a public school, juvenile court school, charter school, school in a country other than the United States, or a nonpublic, nonsectarian school, as provided. Existing law requires, for a pupil in foster care, upon receiving a transfer request from a county placing agency or notification of enrollment from the new local educational agency, the local educational agency to deliver the official transcript to the next educational placement within 2 business days, as provided. This bill would require the transferring local educational agency to issue that official transcript within 2 business days, as provided. By imposing additional requirements on local educational entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 51225.2 of the Education Code proposed by SB 685 to be operative only if this bill and SB 685 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, provides for the issuance, suspension, revocation, and conditions upon licensure for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages. Existing law makes every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished or given away any alcoholic beverage to any person under 21 years of age guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law also makes it unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or the combined influence of both, to drive a vehicle and requires a court, when granting probation following conviction of a driving under the influence offense, to impose certain terms and conditions, including that the individual not drive a vehicle with any measurable amount of alcohol in their blood, among others. This bill would require everyone who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to first review bona fide evidence of majority and identity, as described. The bill would authorize a court when granting probation for certain driving under the influence offenses to prohibit the person from purchasing alcohol and would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue an identification card or driver's license with an appropriate designation on the face upon the receipt of an abstract of the record of a court. The bill would authorize the court to prohibit the purchase of alcohol when the offense occurred within 10 years of 2 or more driving under the influence offenses that resulted in conviction or certain other prior convictions, or if the conviction was for vehicular manslaughter, as specified. The bill would require a seller of alcoholic beverages to refuse to sell or serve someone subject to such an order. To the extent this bill would require a higher level of service from court staff who are county employees, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
