An act to amend Section 1001.36 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.
Summary
AB 433 would narrow California’s mental health diversion law by expanding the list of offenses that are ineligible for pretrial diversion under Penal Code Section 1001.36. Under existing law, a court may divert certain defendants diagnosed with a qualifying mental disorder into treatment instead of prosecution if the disorder was a significant factor in the offense and the defendant is otherwise suitable for community treatment. This bill keeps that framework in place, but adds several serious offenses to the categorical exclusions.
Specifically, the bill would bar diversion for defendants charged with child abuse and endangerment, inflicting cruel or inhuman corporal punishment on a child resulting in injury, assault of a child under 8 resulting in death, human trafficking, and any crime causing great bodily injury, in addition to the offenses already excluded such as murder, rape, and certain sex offenses. The bill does not change the basic eligibility standards, treatment requirements, reporting rules, record-sealing provisions, or firearm-related procedures for defendants who remain eligible for diversion.
Impact
AB 433 would amend Penal Code Section 1001.36, reducing judicial discretion to place defendants into mental health diversion when the current charged offense falls within the newly added exclusion categories. The practical effect would be to reserve diversion treatment for a narrower set of offenses and to ensure that defendants charged with the listed child abuse, trafficking, and great-bodily-injury crimes proceed through the ordinary criminal process rather than diversion. It would not create a new program or appropriation, but it would alter who can access an existing pretrial treatment mechanism and could affect courts, prosecutors, defense counsel, treatment providers, and defendants seeking diversion.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests limited support and some opposition. The bill’s key vote was recorded as a majority vote, but the committee vote on April 29, 2025 was 2-4 on a do-pass motion to re-refer the bill to Appropriations, indicating it did not advance out of committee at that stage. No committee transcript is available here, so the record shows the bill was considered but faced enough resistance to stall. Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as a public-safety limitation on diversion rather than an expansion of treatment access.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between public safety and the rehabilitative purpose of mental health diversion. Supporters of the bill would likely argue that defendants charged with child abuse, human trafficking, or offenses causing great bodily injury should not be eligible for diversion because the conduct is too serious for a treatment-first approach. Opponents would likely argue that categorical exclusions are too broad and may prevent courts from considering whether mental illness substantially contributed to the offense and whether treatment could reduce future risk. The inclusion of “any crime that causes great bodily injury” is especially broad and could be viewed as limiting judicial discretion beyond the specific offenses named in the bill.