Existing law authorizes a court to grant pretrial diversion, for a period no longer than 2 years, to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, in order to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. Existing law conditions eligibility on, among other criteria, a court finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, as specified, excluding antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and pedophilia. This bill would remove borderline personality disorder as an exclusion for pretrial diversion. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1001.36 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 455 to be operative only if this bill and AB 455 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires that specified actions for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault, as defined, be commenced within 22 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within 5 years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual assault, whichever occurs later. Existing law prohibits certain of those actions from commencing on or after the plaintiff's 40th birthday unless the person or entity knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any misconduct that creates a risk of childhood sexual assault by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent, or the person or entity failed to take reasonable steps or to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of childhood sexual assault, as specified. Existing law revives claims that would otherwise have been barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitations, claim presentation deadline, or any other time limit had expired and authorizes the claims to be commenced within specified time periods. This bill would eliminate time limits for the commencement of actions for the recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault, as specified. The bill would eliminate the prohibition on certain actions proceeding on or after the plaintiff's 40th birthday unless specified conditions are met. The bill would specify that its provisions apply to any claim in which the childhood sexual assult occurred on and after January 1, 2024.
The Unfair Competition Law (UCL) makes various unfair competition practices unlawful, including any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Existing law regulates consumer refunds specific to certain industries under specified circumstances. This bill would require a hotel, third-party booking service, hosting platform, or short-term rental, as defined, to allow a reservation for a hotel accommodation or a short-term rental located in California to be canceled without penalty for at least 24 hours after the reservation is confirmed if the reservation is made 72 hours or more before the time of check-in. This bill would require, if a consumer cancels a reservation pursuant to that provision, the hotel, third-party booking service, hosting platform, or short-term rental to issue a refund to a consumer for all amounts paid to the hosting platform, hotel, third-party booking service, or short-term rental to the original form of payment within 30 days of the cancellation of the reservation. This bill would authorize certain public attorneys, including the Attorney General, to bring an enforcement action, as provided. The bill would require a court to impose a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation pursuant to consideration of specified factors. The bill would exempt certain types of reservations from its provisions, including a reservation made for a negotiated rate that was not advertised, or otherwise made available, for booking by the general public.
Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, contains various provisions regulating the application for, the issuance of, and the suspension of alcoholic beverage licenses by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Existing law authorizes an alcoholic beverage licensee, as provided, to petition the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for permission to make an offer in compromise, before the operative date of the suspension of the alcoholic beverage license, and to pay an amount in lieu of serving the suspension. Existing law prescribes certain guidelines for calculating the applicable amount of the offer in compromise for licensees, including, specifically for retail licensees, that an offer in compromise may not be less than $750 nor more than $3,000, or, if the retail licensee has had any other accusation against them within 3 years that resulted in the suspension or revocation of the license, not less than $1,500 nor more than $6,000. This bill would instead provide that an offer in compromise for retail licensees may not be less than $750 nor more than $6,000, or, where the licensee has had the retail license suspended or revoked, as specified, not less than $1,500 nor more than $12,000. Existing law prohibits a licensee from petitioning for an offer in compromise if the proposed suspension exceeds 15 days. Existing law, notwithstanding that prohibition, authorizes a petition for an offer in compromise for a 2nd violation of specified provisions of existing law relating to the provision of alcohol to minors that occurs within 36 months of the initial violation without regard to the length of suspension and provides that the offer in compromise may not be less than $2,500 nor more than $20,000. This bill would instead provide that the offer in compromise may not be less than $2,500 nor more than $40,000. Existing law prohibits a person from providing an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age, to a habitual or common drunkard, or to an obviously intoxicated person, as specified. Existing law makes violation of those provisions a misdemeanor and makes any violation by a licensee of any provision of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act a basis for revocation or suspension of a license. This bill would authorize the department to consider as a factor, in determining the level of discipline for violations of the above-described prohibitions, whether there is a subsequent death or great bodily injury to the individual provided the alcoholic beverage or to any other person. Existing law, for specified violations of the above-described prohibition on providing alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 years of age that result in great bodily injury or death, as specified, makes that violation a misdemeanor punishable by 6 months to one year in county jail, a fine of $1,000, or both. This bill would increase the fine for that violation to $3,000.
Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. Existing law, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities, and establishes the Department of Cannabis Control to administer its provisions. Under existing law, the California Cannabis Equity Act, a local equity applicant is an applicant who has submitted, or will submit, an application to a local jurisdiction to engage in commercial cannabis activity and who meets the requirements of that jurisdiction's local equity program, which focuses on inclusion and support of individuals and communities in California's cannabis industry who are linked to populations or neighborhoods that were negatively or disproportionately impacted by cannabis criminalization, as specified. MAUCRSA, until June 30, 2023, authorized the department, in its sole discretion, to issue a provisional license for a local equity license application if the applicant meets specified requirements. MAUCRSA prohibits the department from renewing a provisional license after January 1, 2025, and provides that no provisional license is effective after January 1, 2026. This bill, until January 1, 2031, would additionally authorize the department, in its sole discretion, to issue a provisional license for a local equity applicant for retailer activities if the applicant meets specified requirements. The bill would authorize the department, in its sole discretion, to renew a provisional license for a local equity applicant for retailer activities until it issues or denies the provisional licensee's annual license, subject to specified requirements, or until 5 years from the date the provisional license was originally issued, whichever is earlier. By extending provisional licensure, the applications for which are required to be signed under penalty of perjury, the bill would expand the scope of the crime of perjury, and would thereby impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature on, among other things, the number of provisional licenses that have been granted under the bill's provisions. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. AUMA authorizes the Legislature to amend its provisions by a 23 vote of each house if the amendment furthers its purposes and intent, except as provided. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of AUMA.
The California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018 prohibits fixed and mobile internet service providers, as defined, that provide broadband internet access service, as defined, from engaging in specified actions concerning the treatment of internet traffic. The act also prohibits fixed and mobile internet service providers from offering or providing services other than broadband internet access service that are delivered over the same last-mile connection as the broadband internet access service, if those services have the purpose or effect of evading the above-described prohibitions or negatively affect the performance of broadband internet access service. This bill, the Digital Equity Bill of Rights, would state that it is the principle of the state, to ensure digital equity for all residents of the state, that residents shall have access to broadband that meets specific requirements, and that it is the policy of the state that, to the extent technically feasible, broadband internet subscribers benefit from equal access to broadband internet service within the service area of a broadband provider, as those terms are defined. The bill would also state that it does not create an obligation for the state to enforce that principle or policy and does not create a private right of action against the state to enforce the bill. The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations.
Existing law, subject to an appropriation, requires the Department of Justice, on a monthly basis, to review the records in the statewide criminal justice databases and identify persons who are eligible for automatic conviction record relief. Under existing law, a person is eligible for automatic conviction record relief if, on or after January 1, 1973, they were sentenced to probation, and completed it without revocation, or if they were convicted of an infraction or a misdemeanor, and other criteria are met, as specified. Existing law, commencing July 1, 2024, and subject to an appropriation, generally makes this arrest record relief available to a person who has been arrested for a felony, including a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, as specified. This bill would, commencing July 1, 2024, require the department to provide confirmation that relief was granted upon request from the subject of the record. The bill would make other technical changes.
(1) Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, is administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and regulates the granting of licenses for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages within the state. The act requires the department to make and prescribe rules to carry out the purposes and intent of existing state constitutional provisions on the regulation of alcoholic beverages, and to enable the department to exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred upon it by the state constitution and the act, not inconsistent with any statute of this state. The act makes it unlawful for any person other than a licensee of the department to sell, manufacture, or import alcoholic beverages in this state, with exceptions. The department, pursuant to its powers and in furtherance of emergency declarations and orders of the Governor under the California Emergency Services Act regarding the spread of the COVID-19 virus, established prescribed temporary relief measures to suspend certain legal restrictions relating to, among other things, the expansion of a licensed footprint, sales of alcoholic beverages to-go, and delivery privileges. Existing law authorizes the department, for a period of 365 days following the end of the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to permit licensees to exercise license privileges in an expanded license area authorized pursuant to a COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization approved in accordance with the Fourth Notice of Regulatory Relief issued by the department, as specified. Existing law makes these provisions effective only until July 1, 2024, and repeals them as of that date. This bill, instead, would make those provisions operative only until July 1, 2026, repeal those provisions on that date, and make conforming changes. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of any city or county to adopt ordinances that regulate zoning within its jurisdiction, as specified. Under that law, variances and conditional use permits may be granted if provided for by the zoning ordinance. Existing law, to the extent that an outdoor expansion of a business to mitigate COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on indoor dining interferes with, reduces, eliminates, or impacts required parking for existing uses, requires a local jurisdiction that has not adopted an ordinance that provides relief from parking restrictions for expanded outdoor dining areas to reduce the number of required parking spaces for existing uses by the number of spaces that the local jurisdiction determines are needed to accommodate an expanded outdoor dining area. Existing law makes these provisions operative on January 1, 2022, and repeals them on July 1, 2024. This bill, instead, would make those provisions operative only until July 1, 2026, and repeal them on that date. Because the bill would require local officials to perform additional duties for an extended period, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities. Existing law restricts satellite food service to limited food preparation in a fully enclosed permanent food facility that meets specified requirements. Existing law requires a permanent food facility, before conducting satellite food service, to submit to the enforcement agency written operating standards. Existing law, for a period of one year after the end of the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, related to the COVID-19 pandemic, or until January 1, 2024, whichever occurs first, authorizes a permitted food facility within any local jurisdiction that is subject to retail food operation restrictions related to a COVID-19 public health response to prepare and serve food as a temporary satellite food service without obtaining a separate satellite food service permit or submitting written operating procedures. With regard to those provisions that authorize a permitted food facility to prepare and serve food as a temporary satellite food service in relation to the COVID-19 public response, this bill, instead, would make those provisions operative only until July 1, 2026. (4) 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law authorizes, when a defendant has been committed to the state prison or to a county jail for the commission of a felony, the court to recall the sentence and either reduce a defendant's term by modifying the sentence, or vacate the conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense and, with the agreement of the district attorney or attorney general, resentence the defendant to a reduced term. Existing law authorizes a defendant to be resentenced pursuant to these provisions upon the court's own motion within 120 days of the date of commitment, or upon the recommendation of specified individuals, including, among others, the district attorney of the county in which the defendant was sentenced. Existing law authorizes the court to consider postconviction factors, including evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice. Existing law establishes a presumption favoring recall and resentencing of the defendant that can only be overcome if a court finds the defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. This bill would additionally authorize the court to recall a sentence, on its own motion, at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed due to new statutory or case law authority. The bill would specify that recall and resentencing under these provisions may be initiated by the original sentencing judge, a judge designated by the presiding judge, or any judge with jurisdiction in the case. The bill would eliminate the requirement that the district attorney or Attorney General concur with the resentencing court's decision to vacate the defendant's conviction and resentence the defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment. The bill would prohibit a court that has recalled the sentence on its own motion from imposing a judgment on a necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense without the concurrence of both the defendant and the prosecutor if the conviction was the result of a plea bargain. The bill would require the court to consider postconviction factors and would specify that evidence that the defendant's incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated in the proceedings related to the conviction or sentence at issue. The bill would require the presumption favoring recall and resentencing to be overcome if a court finds that the defendant currently poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The bill would require the court, after ruling on a referral brought pursuant to these provisions, to advise the defendant of their right to appeal and the necessary steps and time for taking an appeal. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1172.1 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 88 to be operative only if this bill and AB 88 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(1) Existing law specifies the content of a certificate of death and sets forth the persons responsible for completing the certificate of death. Existing law requires certain medical and health content on the certificate. This bill would prohibit "excited delirium," as defined, from being recognized as a valid medical diagnosis or cause of death in this state. The bill would prohibit a coroner, medical examiner, physician, or physician assistant from stating on the certificate of death or in any report that the cause of death was excited delirium. (2) Existing law designates specified employees and appointees of certain public entities to be peace officers. Existing law grants certain powers to peace officers and prescribes certain requirements and responsibilities for peace officers and their employing or appointing entities. The bill would prohibit a peace officer from using the term "excited delirium" to describe an individual in an incident report, but would not prohibit the peace officer from describing an individual's behavior, as specified. (3) Existing law governs the rules of evidence in every action before the Supreme Court or a court of appeal or superior court, including rules relating to judicial notice, evidentiary burdens, witnesses, opinion testimony and scientific evidence, privileges, evidence affected or excluded by extrinsic policies, hearsay evidence, and writings. This bill would deem evidence that a person experienced or suffered an excited delirium inadmissible in a civil action, but would not prohibit a party or witness from testifying as to the factual circumstances surrounding the case, including a person's demeanor, conduct, and physical and mental condition, provided it is not attributed to excited delirium.