An act to amend Section 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to amend Sections 1001.36, 1202.4, 1370, and 1370.01 of the Penal Code, and to amend Sections 4335.2 and 4361 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to criminal procedure.
AB 2275 would substantially revise California’s mental health diversion framework for criminal defendants. The bill tightens eligibility for pretrial diversion by requiring a recent written diagnosis from a qualified mental health expert, limiting eligibility to defendants who are not mentally incompetent, and making clear that a diagnosis alone is not enough. It also narrows access to diversion by excluding certain theft offenses involving planning, sophistication, or professionalism, and by generally barring diversion for violent felonies and specified domestic violence felonies unless the parties stipulate, subject to the bill’s stated limits.
The bill also makes related changes to competency and treatment procedures for defendants found incompetent to stand trial. It removes court authority to place mentally incompetent defendants into diversion or other treatment under the diversion statutes, while preserving and adjusting pathways involving competency restoration, assisted outpatient treatment, conservatorship referrals, and CARE Court referrals. In addition, it requires restitution to victims when a defendant participates in diversion, and it adds or expands firearm-relinquishment and domestic-violence protective-order provisions for certain defendants who complete diversion.
AB 2275 would amend multiple statutes in the Penal Code, Code of Civil Procedure, and Welfare and Institutions Code governing mental health diversion, competency proceedings, restitution, firearm relinquishment, and post-diversion domestic violence protections. It would change the eligibility standards in Penal Code Section 1001.36, alter competency-related procedures in Sections 1370 and 1370.01, require restitution in diversion cases under Section 1202.4, expand firearm surrender requirements under Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.9, and update state hospital/diversion program provisions in Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 4335.2 and 4361. The practical effect would be to make diversion more restrictive for some defendants while preserving treatment-oriented alternatives for others.
Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, the bill’s sentiment can only be inferred from its text. The measure appears to reflect a mixed policy approach: it preserves mental health diversion as a treatment option, but adds more screening, more exclusions, and more public-safety-oriented conditions. That suggests support for diversion as a concept, paired with a more cautious or restrictive posture toward who should qualify. The absence of recorded votes or hearing testimony means there is no documented committee sentiment in the provided materials.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s tighter eligibility rules and its exclusion of additional offense categories from diversion. Potential supporters of the bill would likely emphasize public safety, clearer standards, recent clinical documentation, and restitution for victims. Potential opponents would likely argue that the bill narrows access to treatment-based alternatives for people with mental illness, especially by excluding some violent and domestic-violence-related cases and by removing diversion options for defendants who are mentally incompetent. The firearm and restraining-order provisions may also draw attention from both victim-safety advocates and criminal defense or mental health stakeholders, depending on how broadly they are viewed.