Bill
AB 2669
AB 2669 requires prosecutors and defense to meet and confer on immigration consequences in plea negotiations and allows remedies if the prosecutor fails to justify not avoiding suc
Purpose and intent
- AB 2669, introduced by Assembly Member Gipson, amends California Penal Code section 1016.3 to strengthen and formalize procedures related to immigration consequences in plea negotiations for misdemeanor or infraction cases.
- The bill aims to ensure that immigration consequences are actively considered during plea negotiations and that defense counsel and prosecuting attorneys engage in a meet-and-confer process to avoid adverse immigration outcomes for defendants.
Key provisions and changes
- Duty to advise (existing requirement retained and clarified)
- Defense counsel must provide accurate and affirmative advice about the immigration consequences of a proposed disposition and defend against those consequences when consistent with the defendant’s goals and professional standards.
- Prosecution’s obligation in plea negotiations
- The prosecution must consider avoidance of adverse immigration consequences as a factor in plea negotiations, in the interest of justice.
- The bill adds a formal requirement: the prosecution must meet and confer during the negotiation process with the defense to avoid adverse immigration consequences of a plea, conviction, or sentence.
- Burden-shifting presumption and hearing
- A rebuttable presumption of a violation is created if the defendant shows, through prima facie facts, that during negotiations the defendant proposed an alternative plea or sentence that would avoid adverse immigration consequences and the prosecution declined that offer (e.g., an offense of comparable or greater seriousness).
- Upon such a prima facie showing, the court must order a hearing.
- At the hearing, the prosecution must demonstrate good cause, by clear and convincing evidence, for failing to offer a plea that would avoid the adverse immigration consequences.
- The hearing must comply with Evidence Code Section 351.4.
- Remedies if the prosecution fails to show good cause
- If the court finds no good cause, the court may impose remedies to effectuate the purposes of the section, including:
- Order the parties to meet and confer in good faith within 10 calendar days.
- Continue the matter to permit compliance.
- Make express findings on the record regarding the violation.
- Any other relief necessary in the furtherance of justice.
- Definitions and scope
- “An offense of comparable or greater seriousness” includes offenses within the same sentencing triad, pleads to multiple offenses in lieu of a single offense, or pleading to a more serious offense with greater sentencing exposure.
- Protective language
- The bill does not change the existing requirement that a defendant shall not be required to disclose their immigration status to the court (maintains protections under existing law, including Section 1016.5).
- Fiscal and mandate considerations
- If the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursements to local agencies and school districts would follow established mandate reimbursement procedures.
Who is affected
- Defendants in misdemeanor or infraction cases where immigration consequences may be affected by disposition.
- Defense counsel, who must provide immigration-related counseling and participate in required meet-and-confer processes.
- Prosecution, which must engage in the meet-and-confer process and show good cause at hearings if a plea or sentence avoids immigration consequences.
- Courts, which would hold hearings and impose remedies if good cause is not shown.
Timeline and status
- The bill is in the 2025-2026 California Legislature.
- Recent actions:
- March–April 2026: Referred or re-referred to Public Safety Committee; hearings scheduled/adjusted.
- April 14, 2026: Committee hearing set, but canceled at author’s request.
- Effective dates would be determined by the bill’s final passage and any specified implementation timeline in the enacted version.
Bottom line
- AB 2669 seeks to strengthen the integration of immigration considerations into plea negotiations by codifying a required meet-and-confer process, establishing a presumption of violation for unsuccessful immigration-consequence–avoiding offers, and authorizing court-imposed remedies if prosecutors fail to justify their choices. This complements existing duties on defense counsel and aims to reduce adverse immigration outcomes stemming from criminal dispositions.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
