California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 D cosponsors

AB 2669 — Pleas: immigration.

Last action — In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  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 20, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Prognosis

Not enough signal yet

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

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.

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.

Summary

Existing law provides the pleas a defendant may make to an indictment, information, or complaint charging a misdemeanor or infraction. Existing law requires defense counsel to advise a defendant about the immigration consequences of a proposed disposition, as specified. Existing law requires the prosecution to consider the avoidance of adverse immigration consequences in the plea negotiation process, as specified. This bill would instead require the prosecution to meet and confer during the negotiation process with the defense in an effort to avoid the adverse immigration consequences of a plea, conviction, or sentence. The bill would establish a rebuttable presumption of a violation of the above-described requirement if the defendant asserts facts that provide a prima facie showing that during negotiations the defendant proposed an alternative plea or sentence that would avoid adverse immigration consequences, including, among other things, an offense of greater seriousness, and the prosecution declined the offer. Upon a prima facie showing of the above-described circumstances, the bill would require the court to order a hearing and would require the prosecution to demonstrate good cause for the failure to offer a plea that would avoid adverse immigration consequences. If the court finds that the prosecuting attorney failed to establish good cause at the above-described hearing, the bill would require the court to impose an appropriate remedy, as specified. By imposing additional duties on local prosecutors, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs 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: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  2. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

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

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

  5. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

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

  7. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

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

Subjects

immigration
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 2669 do?
Existing law provides the pleas a defendant may make to an indictment, information, or complaint charging a misdemeanor or infraction. Existing law requires defense counsel to advise a defendant about the immigration consequences of a proposed disposition, as specified. Existing law requires the prosecution to consider the avoidance of adverse immigration consequences in the plea negotiation process, as specified. This bill would instead require the prosecution to meet and confer during the negotiation process with the defense in an effort to avoid the adverse immigration consequences of a plea, conviction, or sentence. The bill would establish a rebuttable presumption of a violation of the above-described requirement if the defendant asserts facts that provide a prima facie showing that during negotiations the defendant proposed an alternative plea or sentence that would avoid adverse immigration consequences, including, among other things, an offense of greater seriousness, and the prosecution declined the offer. Upon a prima facie showing of the above-described circumstances, the bill would require the court to order a hearing and would require the prosecution to demonstrate good cause for the failure to offer a plea that would avoid adverse immigration consequences. If the court finds that the prosecuting attorney failed to establish good cause at the above-described hearing, the bill would require the court to impose an appropriate remedy, as specified. By imposing additional duties on local prosecutors, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors AB 2669?
AB 2669 is sponsored by Gipson, Mike A. (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 2669?
This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 20, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track AB 2669?
Track AB 2669 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2669

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 2669

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →