An act to amend Section 215 of the Penal Code, add and repeal Article 18.3 (commencing with Section 742.01) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to crimes. juveniles.
AB 2698 makes two major changes to California law. First, it creates a temporary youth court diversion pilot program, administered by the Office of Youth and Community Restoration, that would run until January 1, 2030. Subject to legislative appropriation, the office could award six one-time grants to counties in different regions of the state to establish three-year local programs for first-time juvenile misdemeanor offenders. Eligible offenses are limited to petty theft, vandalism, battery with victim consent, and certain drug- and marijuana-possession offenses. Participating youth would appear before a student jury made up of trained high school volunteers, with attorneys from the district attorney and public defender offices mentoring the students and the court overseeing the process.
The diversion model is designed to be restorative rather than punitive. The student jury would not decide guilt or innocence, but would select a disposition such as community service or youth court jury duty, and could also impose conditions like a curfew, grade or attendance monitoring, counseling, a life-plan essay, or an apology letter. Counties that participate would have to protect the juvenile’s privacy, prohibit cell phones in the courtroom, remove any student volunteer who knows the juvenile, and report annually on completions and recidivism, including a six-month recidivism check for each participant.
Second, the bill increases the punishment for carjacking under Penal Code Section 215 from 3, 5, or 9 years to 4, 6, or 10 years in state prison. The bill also preserves the ability to charge both carjacking and robbery for the same conduct, while prohibiting double punishment for the same act. In practical terms, the bill would expand juvenile diversion options in selected counties while simultaneously increasing the sentencing exposure for one of California’s serious violent property crimes.
The general sentiment reflected in the available legislative history appears mixed but not strongly polarized. The bill received a unanimous 8-0 do-pass vote in one committee stage, suggesting support for at least part of its approach, especially the youth diversion pilot. At the same time, the bill was also noted as “held under submission” in committee, which often indicates unresolved concerns, likely tied to fiscal, policy, or implementation issues.
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s combination of rehabilitation and punishment, and the unusual structure of the youth court program. Supporters are likely focused on diversion, restorative justice, and reducing deeper juvenile justice involvement for low-level first offenders. Potential concerns include whether a student-run court can fairly and consistently handle juvenile cases, whether the program is appropriate for the listed offenses, whether the county grant structure is sufficient without a direct appropriation, and whether increasing carjacking penalties is consistent with the bill’s juvenile-reform goals. The battery eligibility rule, which requires victim agreement, is another likely area of sensitivity.
AB 2698 would add a new, temporary article to the Welfare and Institutions Code authorizing the Office of Youth and Community Restoration to create and fund a county-based youth court diversion pilot program through six one-time grants, if the Legislature appropriates funds. It would affect juvenile justice practice in participating counties by creating an alternative diversion track for specified first-time misdemeanor offenses and by imposing reporting requirements on county outcomes and recidivism. The bill would also amend Penal Code Section 215 to increase the sentencing range for carjacking, thereby changing the punishment applicable to that offense statewide.
The available record suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the diversion component, with the bill advancing on an 8-0 committee vote. However, the fact that it was also held under submission indicates that support was not enough to fully resolve committee concerns. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a policy mix of rehabilitative juvenile diversion and tougher punishment for carjacking, with the diversion concept likely drawing the most positive attention and the sentencing increase and implementation details likely generating caution.
The most notable tension in AB 2698 is between its restorative juvenile justice pilot and its tougher carjacking penalty. Supporters of diversion may favor the youth court model as a way to address low-level juvenile offending through community service, mentoring, and accountability, while critics may question whether a student jury should be involved in adjudicating juvenile cases, even without deciding guilt. There may also be concern about the limited offense categories, the need for victim consent in battery cases, the privacy and fairness safeguards, and whether counties can implement the program effectively without guaranteed funding. On the carjacking side, any debate would likely center on whether increasing prison terms is warranted and whether it aligns with broader criminal justice reform goals.