An act to amend Section 1202.4 of the Penal Code, relating to restitution.
AB 2297 would amend Penal Code Section 1202.4 to make clear that restitution applies not only after a criminal conviction, but also when a defendant enters a diversion program tied to the offense. Under the bill, a court would be required to order restitution to victims during the diversion period if the defendant is informed of the right to a judicial determination of the amount, is given a hearing, waives the hearing, or stipulates to the amount. If the defendant completes diversion, the restitution order may be enforced like other restitution orders; if the defendant withdraws or fails diversion, the order is suspended until the criminal case is resolved.
The bill also states that a defendant’s inability to pay restitution because of indigence or mental disorder may not be used to deny diversion or to find that the defendant violated diversion terms. At the same time, the bill preserves existing restitution procedures, including judicial hearings on the amount owed, collection tools, disclosure of assets and liabilities, and enforcement of restitution as a civil judgment. The measure leaves intact the broader restitution framework for victims, including restitution fines, victim compensation reimbursement, and special rules for certain offenses and corporate defendants.
In practical terms, AB 2297 would expand and clarify the state’s restitution laws by expressly tying diversion eligibility and compliance to victim compensation, while limiting the role of inability to pay in diversion decisions. It would affect defendants in diversion programs, victims seeking compensation, courts administering diversion and restitution, district attorneys collecting restitution, and the California Victim Compensation Board when public compensation has been paid. The bill is not an appropriation measure and does not appear to create a new program, but it does adjust how existing criminal restitution obligations are handled in diversion cases.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available voting history is strongly supportive. The bill passed the Assembly committee stage unanimously and later passed Assembly Third Reading with no recorded opposition, suggesting broad agreement with the goal of ensuring victims are compensated even when a case is resolved through diversion. No committee transcript is available here, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate organized opposition.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between victim restitution and access to diversion for defendants with limited means or mental health conditions. Supporters would likely view the bill as closing a gap that could otherwise leave victims unpaid during diversion, while critics could argue that requiring restitution during diversion may create pressure on low-income defendants or complicate diversion administration. The bill attempts to address that concern by expressly prohibiting indigence or mental disorder from being used to deny diversion or to treat a defendant as noncompliant.
AB 2297 would amend Penal Code Section 1202.4 to expressly authorize and require restitution orders in diversion cases, not just after conviction, and to suspend those orders if diversion is not completed. It would also codify that indigence or mental disorder cannot be used to deny diversion or deem a defendant out of compliance, while preserving existing restitution enforcement, disclosure, and collection provisions. The bill primarily affects criminal courts, defendants in diversion programs, victims, and the California Victim Compensation Board, but does not create a new state program or appropriation.
The bill appears to have received very strong support. It advanced out of committee on a unanimous 8-0 vote and later passed Assembly Third Reading 66-0, indicating broad bipartisan agreement or at least no recorded opposition in the available votes. With no committee transcript provided, the public record here shows a generally favorable reception and little visible controversy at the vote stage.
The likely policy tension is between strengthening victim restitution and preserving diversion as a rehabilitative option for defendants who may have limited financial resources or mental health challenges. The bill directly addresses that issue by saying inability to pay due to indigence or mental disorder cannot be used to deny diversion or find noncompliance, but some observers could still question whether requiring restitution during diversion creates practical burdens or unequal outcomes. No specific opposition is documented in the provided materials, so any contention is inferred from the structure of the bill rather than from recorded debate.