WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 1373

Diversion.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Shannon Grove and 3 co-sponsors

SB 1373 tightens mental health pretrial diversion by linking significant-factor findings to a five-year diagnosis, expanding ineligible offenses, and strengthening risk-based suita

Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
#diversion
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 1373

Summary of SB 1373 (Mental health diversion)

Jurisdiction: California | Session: 2025-2026 | Bill Type: Penal Code amendment

Purpose and intent

SB 1373 aims to modify California’s pretrial mental health diversion framework. The bill tightens eligibility and suitability criteria for pretrial diversion of defendants with mental disorders, expands the list of offenses ineligible for diversion, and adjusts certain risk and supervisory standards. The overall goal is to better align diversion decisions with public safety considerations while providing treatment-oriented options for qualifying defendants.

Key provisions and changes

  • Eligibility timing for “significant factor” finding

    • The court would determine that a defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the offense only if the disorder was diagnosed within 5 years of the current offense.

  • Expanded list of ineligible offenses for diversion

    • Adds offenses to the mandatory ineligibility list, including:
    • Attempted murder
    • Kidnapping
    • Carjacking
    • Human trafficking
    • Other specified offenses in the list (e.g., murder, rape, certain child endangerment and sex offenses, etc.)
    • Explicitly prohibits diversion for defendants with two prior felonies or a prior Three Strikes (more generally, prior strike) offense.

  • Suitability criteria for diversion (more stringent)

    • The standard for “suitability” shifts to determine that the defendant does not pose a substantial and undue risk to public safety, and further requires consideration of:
    • The defendant’s prior history in a pretrial diversion plan
    • The severity of injury to the victim
    • The court may deny diversion if it finds that it is more likely than not that the defendant, if treated in the community, would pose a risk to public safety.

  • Procedural changes and hearings

    • If a defendant would be summarily granted diversion or relief, the court must hold an additional hearing to confirm the decision.

  • Prima facie showing and hearings

    • The court may require a prima facie showing that the defendant meets eligibility and suitability for diversion; if not made, the court can deny diversion or grant other relief. If a prima facie showing is made and diversion is possible, an additional hearing is required before final grant.

  • Definitions and scope of pretrial diversion

    • Reaffirms the concept of pretrial diversion as postponing prosecution to allow mental health treatment, with conditions and program referrals subject to available resources and the defendant’s eligibility.
    • Treatment providers must deliver progress reports to the court, defense, and prosecution.

  • Risk and firearms provisions (prosecution option)

    • Prosecutors may seek an order prohibiting firearm ownership or possession for the duration of diversion if the defendant is deemed a danger to self or others, with the burden of proof on the prosecution (clear and convincing evidence).

  • Record and privacy implications

    • Successful diversion can result in dismissal of the charged offenses, with records treated to protect the defendant’s privacy (subject to certain exceptions and law).

  • Costs and reimbursements

    • If the act imposes costs mandated by the state, the state would reimburse local agencies as required by existing mandate reimbursement provisions.

Affected parties and impact

  • Defendants with mental disorders who would otherwise be eligible for pretrial diversion
    • Potentially fewer defendants qualify due to stricter eligibility timing, expanded ineligibility offenses, and revised suitability standards.
  • Courts and prosecutors
    • Increased duties in evaluating eligibility, conducting hearings, and making diversion determinations.
    • Potential for stronger public safety gating on diversion due to enhanced risk assessment criteria.
  • Victims and communities
    • Consideration of victim rights remains part of diversion decisions; impact on safety and accountability may vary depending on case specifics.
  • Local agencies and mental health providers
    • Possible cost implications and increased coordination with treatment providers for reporting and monitoring.

Timeline and procedural notes

  • Bill introduced February 20, 2026; amended in April 2026.
  • As amended, provisions would apply to pretrial diversion decisions under Penal Code 1001.36, with the formal amendment language reflected in the bill’s text.
  • The act would include standard state-mandated local program reimbursement requirements if costs are deemed mandated.

Bottom line

SB 1373 refines California’s mental health pretrial diversion by (1) tying the significant-factor finding to a five-year diagnosis window, (2) expanding offenses that render a defendant ineligible for diversion, (3) tightening suitability criteria and permitting more targeted risk-based denial, and (4) enhancing procedural safeguards and reporting requirements. The bill emphasizes treatment while strengthening safeguards to prevent diversion for higher-risk or more serious offenses.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.