AB 2275 — Mental health diversion.
Last action — Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
-
1Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 19, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.
Odds of enactment
Low chanceBased on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a low chance of becoming law.
Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.
A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.
Prognosis
Not enough signal yet to read this bill's trajectory — we surface a likelihood only once there's real movement (stage, sponsorship, committee, or votes) to point to.
Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.
Summary
Existing law authorizes the court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant diagnosed with a mental disorder if the defendant satisfies certain eligibility requirements and if the court determines that the defendant is suitable for diversion. Existing law provides that a defendant is eligible for diversion if they have been diagnosed with certain mental disorders and the court finds that the mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to the defendant's involvement in the alleged offense. Existing law excludes a defendant from diversion for specified charged offenses, including, among others, murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, or continuous sexual abuse of a child, as specified. Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent, establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated, and requires a court, before ordering a defendant to be committed to the State Department of State Hospitals or other treatment facility, to hear and determine whether the defendant lacks the capacity to make decisions regarding the administration of antipsychotic medication, as specified. This bill would revise the eligibility requirement by prohibiting the court from finding the defendant eligible solely based on the defendant's diagnosis of a mental disorder and would additionally require the court to find that the defendant is not mentally incompetent. The bill would require the defendant, in order to be eligible, to provide a written diagnosis of a mental disorder, from within the preceding 2 years, to the court and the prosecution, as specified. The bill would additionally exclude a defendant from diversion if they were charged with theft or an attempted theft offense, if the crime was carried out in a manner demonstrating planning, sophistication, or professionalism. The bill would also, unless the parties stipulate to defendant's placement in diversion, prohibit placement if the defendant has been charged with a violent felony, as specified, or certain felony offenses involving domestic violence. The bill would remove the court's authority to grant diversion or other forms of treatment when a defendant is mentally incompetent. Existing law prohibits a person subject to specified protective orders from owning a firearm or ammunition. Existing law requires a person subject to those orders to relinquish any firearms or ammunition they own. This bill would authorize the court, for a defendant charged with a crime involving domestic violence that has completed mental health diversion, to issue an order, for up to 10 years, restraining the defendant from contact with the victim, as specified. The bill would additionally require an individual subject to a protective order through the above-described provisions to relinquish their firearms or ammunition. The California Constitution entitles the victim of a crime to restitution. Existing law requires the court in each criminal case to order a convicted defendant to pay full restitution to the victim and a separate restitution fine, as specified. This bill would require that the court order restitution to the victim or victims if a defendant participates in a diversion program. This bill would make other conforming changes.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removedPlain-language change summary
The proposed changes to Bill AB 2275 involve adding new language and removing some existing text. This could indicate a refinement of the bill's provisions, possibly to clarify its intentions or to address specific concerns raised during its review. These changes matter because they can impact how the bill is interpreted and implemented, potentially affecting those it is meant to benefit. Overall, updates like these can help ensure that the law is clearer and more effective.
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBillText Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites |Track Bill | Version:
View plain text versions (2)
- Introduced 02/19/26 - Introduced Current pdf February 19, 2026
- AB2275 View text html
Action History
-
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Jasmeet Bains · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Bains, Jasmeet Democratic
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.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 2275 do?
- Existing law authorizes the court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant diagnosed with a mental disorder if the defendant satisfies certain eligibility requirements and if the court determines that the defendant is suitable for diversion. Existing law provides that a defendant is eligible for diversion if they have been diagnosed with certain mental disorders and the court finds that the mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to the defendant's involvement in the alleged offense. Existing law excludes a defendant from diversion for specified charged offenses, including, among others, murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, or continuous sexual abuse of a child, as specified. Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent, establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated, and requires a court, before ordering a defendant to be committed to the State Department of State Hospitals or other treatment facility, to hear and determine whether the defendant lacks the capacity to make decisions regarding the administration of antipsychotic medication, as specified. This bill would revise the eligibility requirement by prohibiting the court from finding the defendant eligible solely based on the defendant's diagnosis of a mental disorder and would additionally require the court to find that the defendant is not mentally incompetent. The bill would require the defendant, in order to be eligible, to provide a written diagnosis of a mental disorder, from within the preceding 2 years, to the court and the prosecution, as specified. The bill would additionally exclude a defendant from diversion if they were charged with theft or an attempted theft offense, if the crime was carried out in a manner demonstrating planning, sophistication, or professionalism. The bill would also, unless the parties stipulate to defendant's placement in diversion, prohibit placement if the defendant has been charged with a violent felony, as specified, or certain felony offenses involving domestic violence. The bill would remove the court's authority to grant diversion or other forms of treatment when a defendant is mentally incompetent. Existing law prohibits a person subject to specified protective orders from owning a firearm or ammunition. Existing law requires a person subject to those orders to relinquish any firearms or ammunition they own. This bill would authorize the court, for a defendant charged with a crime involving domestic violence that has completed mental health diversion, to issue an order, for up to 10 years, restraining the defendant from contact with the victim, as specified. The bill would additionally require an individual subject to a protective order through the above-described provisions to relinquish their firearms or ammunition. The California Constitution entitles the victim of a crime to restitution. Existing law requires the court in each criminal case to order a convicted defendant to pay full restitution to the victim and a separate restitution fine, as specified. This bill would require that the court order restitution to the victim or victims if a defendant participates in a diversion program. This bill would make other conforming changes.
- Who sponsors AB 2275?
- AB 2275 is sponsored by Bains, Jasmeet (Democratic).
- What is the current status of AB 2275?
- This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 19, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
- Where can I track AB 2275?
- Track AB 2275 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 2275
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.
Stay ahead of AB 2275
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →