California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 684 — Incompetence to stand trial: conservatorship: treatment.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 246, Statutes of 2017.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 17, 2017. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 3 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.

Summary

(1) Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated and by which the defendant receives treatment with the goal of returning the defendant to competency. Existing law allows a mentally incompetent defendant to be committed to the State Department of State Hospitals or other public or private treatment facility for a period of 3 years or to a period of commitment equal to the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law for the most serious offense charged, whichever is shorter, and requires the defendant to be returned to the committing court after his or her maximum period of commitment. If the defendant is gravely disabled upon his or her return to the committing court, existing law requires the court to order the conservatorship investigator of the county to initiate conservatorship proceedings on the basis that the indictment or information pending against the person charges a felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to the physical well-being of another person. This bill would also allow the initiation of conservatorship proceedings on the basis that person is gravely disabled due to a condition in which the person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter. (2) Existing law requires, if the action is on a complaint charging a felony, that a proceeding to determine mental competence be held prior to the filing of an information unless counsel for the defendant requests a preliminary examination. Existing law requires an indictment or information to be pending against the defendant at the time a conservatorship is initiated. This bill would allow, if the action is on a complaint charging a felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to the physical well-being of another person, the prosecuting attorney, at any time before or after a defendant is determined incompetent to stand trial, to request a determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense or offenses alleged in the complaint, solely for the purpose of establishing that the defendant is gravely disabled, and would grant the defendant a preliminary hearing after restoration of competency. The bill would define "gravely disabled" for these purposes as a condition where the person has been found mentally incompetent by specified procedures, and certain other facts exist, including, among others, that the person is charged with a felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to the physical well-being of another person. The bill would allow for the initiation of a conservatorship upon a criminal complaint if there has been a finding of probable cause on the complaint. The bill would provide that a proceeding to determine mental competence, or in the alternative, a request for a preliminary examination, as described above, would not preclude a determination of probable cause as described above, and vice versa.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 246, Statutes of 2017.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 2233.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  6. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  7. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 67. Noes 0. Page 2634.) Ordered to the Senate.

  8. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  9. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass as amended. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 11).

  11. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  12. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  13. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  14. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 1346.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  15. Published May 9 at 9 p.m.

  16. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  17. Ordered to second reading.

  18. Read third time and amended.

  19. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  20. Ordered to second reading.

  21. Withdrawn from committee.

  22. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  23. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 749.) (April 18).

  24. Set for hearing April 18.

  25. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  26. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23.

  27. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Bates · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

  • Bates

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

Special Consent Calendar # SB684

Passed 38 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 33002
Democratic 5000
Total 38002
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Monning — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Pan — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wilk — Yea
De León — Not Voting
Cannella — Yea
Allen — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Lara — Yea
Newman — Yea
Skinner — Not Voting
Atkins — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

SB 684 Bates Consent Calendar Second Day

Passed 67 Yea · 0 Nay · 12 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 51007
Democratic 11004
Republican 5001
Total 670012
% of votes cast 85%0%0%15%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Harper — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Thurmond — Not Voting
Waldron — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Burke — Yea
Fong — Yea
Salas — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Levine — Yea
Low — Not Voting
Chau — Yea
Mayes — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Baker — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Chávez — Not Voting
Cooley — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Quirk — Not Voting
Rendon — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Not Voting
Steinorth — Yea
Ting — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Gray — Not Voting
Cooper — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Not Voting
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Not Voting
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Not Voting
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
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 SB 684 do?
(1) Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated and by which the defendant receives treatment with the goal of returning the defendant to competency. Existing law allows a mentally incompetent defendant to be committed to the State Department of State Hospitals or other public or private treatment facility for a period of 3 years or to a period of commitment equal to the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law for the most serious offense charged, whichever is shorter, and requires the defendant to be returned to the committing court after his or her maximum period of commitment. If the defendant is gravely disabled upon his or her return to the committing court, existing law requires the court to order the conservatorship investigator of the county to initiate conservatorship proceedings on the basis that the indictment or information pending against the person charges a felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to the physical well-being of another person. This bill would also allow the initiation of conservatorship proceedings on the basis that person is gravely disabled due to a condition in which the person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter. (2) Existing law requires, if the action is on a complaint charging a felony, that a proceeding to determine mental competence be held prior to the filing of an information unless counsel for the defendant requests a preliminary examination. Existing law requires an indictment or information to be pending against the defendant at the time a conservatorship is initiated. This bill would allow, if the action is on a complaint charging a felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to the physical well-being of another person, the prosecuting attorney, at any time before or after a defendant is determined incompetent to stand trial, to request a determination of probable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense or offenses alleged in the complaint, solely for the purpose of establishing that the defendant is gravely disabled, and would grant the defendant a preliminary hearing after restoration of competency. The bill would define "gravely disabled" for these purposes as a condition where the person has been found mentally incompetent by specified procedures, and certain other facts exist, including, among others, that the person is charged with a felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to the physical well-being of another person. The bill would allow for the initiation of a conservatorship upon a criminal complaint if there has been a finding of probable cause on the complaint. The bill would provide that a proceeding to determine mental competence, or in the alternative, a request for a preliminary examination, as described above, would not preclude a determination of probable cause as described above, and vice versa.
Who sponsors SB 684?
SB 684 is sponsored by Bates.
What is the current status of SB 684?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 17, 2017. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 684?
Track SB 684 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 684

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 SB 684

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →