Legislation Tracker

Establishes maximum caseload standards for public defenders in California, based on recommendations from the American Bar Association and the RAND Corporation study. Limits felony caseloads to 150 per attorney per year, misdemeanors to 400, and juvenile cases to 200.

Reclassified certain nonviolent property and drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Allows individuals previously convicted of these felonies to petition for resentencing. Redirected savings to mental health, drug treatment, and school programs.

Allows parole consideration for nonviolent felony offenders who have served their primary sentence. Authorizes CDCR to award credits for good behavior and rehabilitative programming. Requires juvenile court judges to decide whether minors should be tried as adults.

Reformed California's felony murder rule to require that a defendant must have been a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life, or was the actual killer. Allows those previously convicted under the old standard to petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.

Prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction or sentence based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. Allows defendants to challenge convictions and sentences where statistical evidence demonstrates racial bias in charging, conviction, or sentencing, even without proof of intentional discrimination.

Requires courts to dismiss sentencing enhancements in the interest of justice when specific mitigating circumstances are present, including age, mental illness, prior victimization, and whether the enhancement is based on a prior conviction that is over 5 years old.

Proposes to require that public defender salaries match district attorney salaries at equivalent experience levels within each county. Addresses the longstanding pay gap that drives experienced attorneys out of public defense and into prosecution or private practice.

Proposes to expand the right to counsel beyond criminal proceedings to include certain civil matters with liberty or safety implications — immigration detention hearings, eviction proceedings, and civil commitment hearings. Modeled after New York City's universal representation program.

Expands resentencing eligibility for individuals who committed offenses before age 26, recognizing neuroscience research on brain development. Would allow courts to consider youthful factors at resentencing hearings for those currently serving lengthy sentences.

Expands California's automatic record clearance to include additional conviction types and reduces waiting periods. Builds on AB 1076 (2019) to automate the process of clearing eligible records through the Department of Justice database, removing barriers to employment, housing, and education.

Federal bill proposing to establish minimum standards for public defense systems nationwide, including caseload limits, independence from judicial oversight, and adequate compensation. Would create a federal grant program to help states meet these standards.

Federal sentencing and prison reform law that reduces mandatory minimums for certain drug offenses, expands compassionate release, and increases good-time credits. Also requires the Bureau of Prisons to provide programming aimed at reducing recidivism.

Requires California counties to report public defender systems used, case-assignment methods and timing, budget and expenditures, staffed positions by category, and number of cases assigned to the State Public Defender every two years beginning January 1, 2029. OSPD will compile and publish a statewide summary report. Counties must designate a contact person for the public defender office. Closes the most-cited data gap in California indigent defense — currently the state collects no county-level public-defense data.

Beginning with contracts entered into after January 1, 2027, prohibits California counties and courts from using flat-fee or per-case compensation for indigent defense. Requires OSPD California Standards for Contract and Panel Defense Systems compliance. References RAND 2023 National Public Defense Workload Study for workload limits. Separates investigator / social-worker funding from attorney compensation. Requires counties to submit private indigent-defense contracts to OSPD every two years with hourly-rate equivalents.

Amends California's Racial Justice Act (Penal Code § 745). The court SHALL appoint counsel to all indigent post-conviction RJA litigants who request counsel, and whenever the State Public Defender requests. Addresses the documented problem where courts have denied counsel to litigants raising RJA claims far more than they have appointed counsel — despite the statutory threshold for counsel being low. Streamlines RJA discovery and pleading procedures.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution affirming the constitutional importance of indigent defense in California, calling for improved public defender funding, staffing, and institutional support. Anchors the CPDA-backed budget request of $15 million per year for three years ($45M total) for post-bar attorney positions in county PD offices. Non-binding but politically significant: the first chamber-wide statement of the indigent-defense crisis from the California Legislature.

Establishes the California Public Safety Services Support Fund and directs $400 million annually from the General Fund to support county implementation of Proposition 36 (2024) — drug-treatment-mandated felonies and organized-retail-theft enhancements. Authored to address the gap between Prop 36's voter-approved framework (which counties are now applying at scale: ~40,000 filings in year one) and the Governor's January 2026 budget proposal that allocated zero new funds for Prop 36 enforcement and treatment infrastructure.

Effective January 1, 2026, the Judicial Conference of the United States increased Criminal Justice Act panel hourly rates: non-capital from $175 to $177/hour (+1.14%); capital from $223 to $226/hour (+1.35%). Case maximums increased correspondingly: felony $13,600 → $13,800; appellate $9,700 → $9,800; 'other' $2,900 → $3,000; misdemeanor $3,900 (unchanged). Funded through the federal Defender Services account in the FY2026 Judiciary appropriation.

Governor Newsom's final (term-limited) May Revision released May 14, 2026 — $322B total / $246B General Fund — closes the projected deficit through July 2028 but contains no dedicated trial-level public defender funding line. ACR 159's $15M/year × 3 years CPDA post-bar attorney ask was not addressed. No new Prop 36 implementation funding (administration position: 'unfunded mandate'). Per the Senate Budget Sub 5 (Part B) May 20, 2026 agenda — the primary budget document — the Judicial Branch May Revise package totals $5.3B ($3.3B GF, ~$3B to trial court operations) and includes $20M/year for court interpreters / language access (Trial Court Trust Fund, 2026-27 and 2027-28) and a $118M reappropriation across six courthouse construction projects (corrects the earlier '~$40M for three projects in Butte/Monterey/San Bernardino' figure). Note: the Senate Sub 5 Part B agenda does NOT itemize a standalone court-appointed-counsel rate augmentation or the $300M one-time fine/fee debt-forgiveness fund cited in earlier summaries — both pending re-verification (may live in Assembly Sub 6 or a Judicial Council fact sheet).

Senator Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) introduced SB 574 to codify into California law a duty for attorneys, arbitrators, and mediators to verify the accuracy of AI-generated output before submitting it to a court or tribunal, and to take prompt corrective action when AI-generated 'hallucinations' (fabricated citations, misrepresented case holdings) are discovered. The bill complements the proposed State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct amendments (Rules 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1, 5.3) that cleared 45-day public comment May 4, 2026.

California Supreme Court unanimous decision April 30, 2026 (S277910) holding that Cal. Const. art. I, § 12(b)–(c) is the exclusive basis for denying bail in noncapital cases; cash bail cannot be set at unattainable amounts as a backdoor detention mechanism; pretrial detention requires noticed motion and on-record findings supporting the constitutional grounds. Builds on In re Humphrey (2021) and the 2024 Pretrial Reform Implementation framework. Operates as a binding rule-change across all 58 California superior courts.

Would raise the eligibility threshold for mental health diversion under Pen. Code § 1001.36 from 'unreasonable risk' to 'substantial and undue risk' of public-safety harm, and impose a 5-year window on qualifying diagnoses. Driven by Sacramento County DA Thien Ho and OC DA Spitzer (lead supporters); opposed by CPDA Executive Director Kate Chatfield, who argues the bill 'would strip vulnerable people of the treatment they need, particularly people of color and lower-income Californians.' Sacramento 2025 data cited: 1,300+ diversion motions, 689 felony grants, 247 (36%) re-arrested by March 2026 — the data fueling DA push for tightening.