California Assembly Bill AB479

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/10/25
• Refer: 2/24/25
• Failed: 2/2/26

Caption

An act to amend Section 236.15 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.

Summary

AB 479 would amend Penal Code Section 236.15, which governs vacatur relief for people who were arrested for or convicted of a nonviolent offense while they were victims of intimate partner violence or sexual violence. Under existing law, a petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that the offense was directly caused by the abuse and that the petitioner lacked the requisite intent; if the court makes the required findings, it may vacate the conviction and order related records sealed and destroyed. The bill adds a special procedure for petitioners who hold a professional license and whose offense is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of that license. In those cases, the petitioner must serve the petition on the relevant licensing entity, which would have 45 days to respond, and the court must make findings about the impact of vacatur on public health, safety, and welfare before granting relief. The bill also clarifies that licensing records should not be distributed to state licensing boards and preserves existing restitution obligations that directly benefit the victim of the offense.

Impact

AB 479 would narrow and formalize the vacatur process for licensed professionals by inserting licensing-board notice and an additional public-safety finding into Penal Code Section 236.15 when the offense is substantially related to the license. It would not change the basic eligibility standard for vacatur, but it would add an extra layer of review for petitioners whose criminal history could affect professional regulation, while leaving intact the sealing, destruction, and denial-of-arrest consequences of a successful petition. The bill would affect courts, prosecutors, licensing entities, and petitioners seeking relief under the intimate partner violence or sexual violence vacatur statute.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill was introduced and then filed without recorded committee debate or floor vote history in the materials provided, so there is no documented public sentiment from hearings or votes. Based on the text, the measure appears to be framed as a procedural safeguard rather than a rollback of vacatur relief, which may make it more acceptable to public-safety and licensing stakeholders than a broader expansion would be. At the same time, the added licensing review indicates some concern about ensuring that relief does not undermine professional oversight in sensitive occupations.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the balance between survivor relief and professional regulation. Supporters of the existing vacatur framework may view the new licensing notice and public-health/safety/welfare findings as an added hurdle for survivors seeking to clear records tied to abuse, especially where the offense was caused by coercion or trauma. Opponents or licensing interests may favor the bill because it gives licensing entities notice and a chance to respond when the offense is substantially related to the license, and requires the court to consider public safety before granting relief. The bill also preserves restitution, which may be relevant in cases where victims or prosecutors want financial obligations to remain enforceable.