California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 D cosponsors

AB 910 — Criminal procedure: sentencing.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

  1. 1
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 19, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Prognosis

Stalled 28% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

  • Introduced

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 5 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

In plain language

The bill expands legal relief for victims of violence with broader grounds for vacating convictions and sealing records.

This bill allows victims of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence to vacate any offense conviction, except murder. It also mandates sealing and destruction of related arrest records by law enforcement agencies and extends affirmative defenses to violent felonies, excluding murder.

What this means for you
  • Workers: This bill may help workers who were victims of violence and previously faced criminal charges, easing their reintegration into the workforce.
  • Families: Families of victims may benefit from their loved ones being able to clear their records and rebuild their lives.
  • Small Business: Small businesses may find a more capable workforce as victims of violence are more likely to access employment without the burden of a criminal record.

Summary

Existing law allows a person who was arrested or convicted of a nonviolent offense while they were a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence, to petition the court, under penalty of perjury, for vacatur relief. Existing law requires, to receive that relief, that the crime for which the person was arrested or convicted was a nonviolent offense and that the person establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the arrest or conviction was the direct result of being a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence. Existing law authorizes the court to vacate the conviction if it concludes that the petitioner was a victim of one of those crimes at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, the arrest was a direct result of being a victim of that offense, and the vacatur is in the best interest of justice. This bill would allow that relief for a person arrested or convicted of any offense, except murder, as specified. Because this bill would authorize more petitions to be filed under penalty of perjury, by expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. If a court issues an order for a person who was arrested or convicted of an offense while they were a victim of intimate partner violence or sexual violence, existing law requires the court to order the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense, the Department of Justice, and any law enforcement agency that arrested the petitioner or participated in the arrest of the petitioner to seal their records of the arrest and the court order to seal and destroy the records within 3 years from the date of the arrest, or within one year after the court order is granted, whichever occurs later, and thereafter to destroy their records of the arrest and the court order to seal and destroy those records. This bill would require the court to also order any law enforcement agency that has taken action or maintains records related to or because of the offense, including, but not limited to, departments of probation, rehabilitation, corrections, and parole, to seal and destroy their records. The bill would require those agencies to seal their records of arrest, conviction, or adjudication and the court order to seal and destroy the records within one year from the date of arrest, or within 90 days after the court order is granted, whichever occurs later. The bill would require the agencies to destroy these records within one year of the date of the court order. By increasing duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to notify the petitioner and the petitioner's counsel that the department has complied with the order to seal the arrest records by the applicable deadline. Existing law creates an affirmative defense against a charge of a crime that the person was coerced to commit the offense as a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence at the time of the offense and when the person had reasonable fear of harm. Existing law prohibits this defense from being used with respect to a violent felony, as defined. This bill would allow that defense to be used with respect to a violent felony, except for murder, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  3. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  5. Withdrawn from committee.

  6. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  7. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  8. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  9. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  10. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 71. Noes 2. Page 3874.)

  11. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  12. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 1.) (January 22).

  13. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  14. Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Page 3806.)

  15. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  16. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  17. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  18. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  19. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. Read second time and amended.

  20. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  21. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  22. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. Read second time and amended.

  23. From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.

  24. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 4 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 910 Bonta Assembly Third Reading

Passed 71 Yea · 2 Nay · 7 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 54005
Republican 16202
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 71207
% of votes cast 89%3%0%9%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Not Voting
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Patel, Darshana R. Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Ransom, Rhodesia Democratic Not Voting
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Not Voting
Rodriguez, Michelle Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Schultz, Nick Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Not Voting
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Castillo, Leticia Republican Not Voting
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
DeMaio, Carl Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Ellis, Stan Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Not Voting
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Yea
Hadwick, Heather Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Johnson, Natasha Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Tangipa, David J. Republican Yea
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 11 Yea · 1 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 11000
Republican 0103
Total 11103
% of votes cast 73%7%0%20%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Nay
Hoover, Josh Republican Not Voting
Ta, Tri Republican Not Voting
Tangipa, David J. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 13 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 11001
Republican 2002
Total 13003
% of votes cast 81%0%0%19%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Patel, Darshana R. Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Not Voting
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights healthcare health-insurance
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 910 do?
Existing law allows a person who was arrested or convicted of a nonviolent offense while they were a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence, to petition the court, under penalty of perjury, for vacatur relief. Existing law requires, to receive that relief, that the crime for which the person was arrested or convicted was a nonviolent offense and that the person establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the arrest or conviction was the direct result of being a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence. Existing law authorizes the court to vacate the conviction if it concludes that the petitioner was a victim of one of those crimes at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, the arrest was a direct result of being a victim of that offense, and the vacatur is in the best interest of justice. This bill would allow that relief for a person arrested or convicted of any offense, except murder, as specified. Because this bill would authorize more petitions to be filed under penalty of perjury, by expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. If a court issues an order for a person who was arrested or convicted of an offense while they were a victim of intimate partner violence or sexual violence, existing law requires the court to order the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense, the Department of Justice, and any law enforcement agency that arrested the petitioner or participated in the arrest of the petitioner to seal their records of the arrest and the court order to seal and destroy the records within 3 years from the date of the arrest, or within one year after the court order is granted, whichever occurs later, and thereafter to destroy their records of the arrest and the court order to seal and destroy those records. This bill would require the court to also order any law enforcement agency that has taken action or maintains records related to or because of the offense, including, but not limited to, departments of probation, rehabilitation, corrections, and parole, to seal and destroy their records. The bill would require those agencies to seal their records of arrest, conviction, or adjudication and the court order to seal and destroy the records within one year from the date of arrest, or within 90 days after the court order is granted, whichever occurs later. The bill would require the agencies to destroy these records within one year of the date of the court order. By increasing duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to notify the petitioner and the petitioner's counsel that the department has complied with the order to seal the arrest records by the applicable deadline. Existing law creates an affirmative defense against a charge of a crime that the person was coerced to commit the offense as a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, or sexual violence at the time of the offense and when the person had reasonable fear of harm. Existing law prohibits this defense from being used with respect to a violent felony, as defined. This bill would allow that defense to be used with respect to a violent felony, except for murder, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors AB 910?
AB 910 is sponsored by Bonta, Mia (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 910?
This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 19, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track AB 910?
Track AB 910 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 910

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 910

Last checked for changes about 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →