Existing law provides a district attorney with the discretion to file criminal charges against an individual. Existing law requires a preliminary examination to be conducted, as specified, before an information is filed. Upon completion of a preliminary hearing, existing law requires the district attorney to file an information against the defendant charging the defendant with either the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment or any offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have been committed. Under existing law, when an action is dismissed by a magistrate, as specified, the prosecutor may make a motion in the superior court within 15 days to compel the magistrate to reinstate the complaint or a portion of the complaint and to reinstate the custodial status of the defendant under the same terms and conditions as when the defendant last appeared before the magistrate.

Under existing law, the defendant may make a motion to set aside the indictment or information based claim that defendant had been committed without reasonable or probable cause and specifies the procedures for that motion. Existing law requires a writ of prohibition based on the ground that a defendant was committed based on an information without reasonable or probable cause to be filed in the appellate court within 15 days after a motion to set aside an indictment or information has been denied by the court.

This bill, the Respect Judicial Decisions Act, would, on or after January 1, 2027, in cases where a defendant was held to answer for at least one felony count at the preliminary hearing, require the district attorney to file a motion seeking leave to charge an offense or offenses that were dismissed at the preliminary examination due to the lack of reasonable or probable cause before the district attorney can file an information reinstating the charge or charges, as specified. The bill would require a writ of prohibition based on the ground that the defendant was committed based on an information without reasonable or probable cause to be filed in the appellate court within 15 days of a court granting the above-described motion to reinstate an offense or offenses. The bill would authorize review of the granting of a motion to reinstate a charge only if a motion for review is brought no later than 60 days following the defendants arraignment on the information or indictment of a felony, except as specified. By placing new duties on prosecutors, this 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.

Existing law provides a district attorney with the discretion to file criminal charges against an individual. Existing law requires a preliminary examination to be conducted, as specified, before an information is filed. Upon completion of a preliminary hearing, existing law requires the district attorney to file an information against the defendant charging the defendant with either the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment or any offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have been committed. Under existing law, when an action is dismissed by a magistrate, as specified, the prosecutor may make a motion in the superior court within 15 days to compel the magistrate to reinstate the complaint or a portion of the complaint and to reinstate the custodial status of the defendant under the same terms and conditions as when the defendant last appeared before the magistrate.

Under existing law, the defendant may make a motion to set aside the indictment or information based claim that defendant had been committed without reasonable or probable cause and specifies the procedures for that motion. Existing law requires a writ of prohibition based on the ground that a defendant was committed based on an information without reasonable or probable cause to be filed in the appellate court within 15 days after a motion to set aside an indictment or information has been denied by the court.

This bill, the Respect Judicial Decisions Act, would, on or after January 1, 2027, in cases where a defendant was held to answer for at least one felony count at the preliminary hearing, require the district attorney to file a motion seeking leave to charge an offense or offenses that were dismissed at the preliminary examination due to the lack of reasonable or probable cause before the district attorney can file an information reinstating the charge or charges, as specified. The bill would require a writ of prohibition based on the ground that the defendant was committed based on an information without reasonable or probable cause to be filed in the appellate court within 15 days of a court granting the above-described motion to reinstate an offense or offenses. The bill would authorize review of the granting of a motion to reinstate a charge only if a motion for review is brought no later than 60 days following the defendants arraignment on the information or indictment of a felony, except as specified. By placing new duties on prosecutors, this 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.

Existing law provides a district attorney with the discretion to file criminal charges against an individual. Existing law requires a preliminary examination to be conducted, as specified, before an information is filed. Upon completion of a preliminary hearing, existing law requires the district attorney to file an information against the defendant charging the defendant with either the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment or any offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have been committed. Under existing law, when an action is dismissed by a magistrate, as specified, the prosecutor may make a motion in the superior court within 15 days to compel the magistrate to reinstate the complaint or a portion of the complaint and to reinstate the custodial status of the defendant under the same terms and conditions as when the defendant last appeared before the magistrate.

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.

Existing law provides a district attorney with the discretion to file criminal charges against an individual. Existing law requires a preliminary examination to be conducted, as specified, before an information is filed. Upon completion of a preliminary hearing, existing law requires the district attorney to file an information against the defendant charging the defendant with either the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment or any offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have been committed. Under existing law, when an action is dismissed by a magistrate, as specified, the prosecutor may make a motion in the superior court within 15 days to compel the magistrate to reinstate the complaint or a portion of the complaint and to reinstate the custodial status of the defendant under the same terms and conditions as when the defendant last appeared before the magistrate.

This bill, the Respect Judicial Decisions Act, would instead only allow the information to charge the defendant with the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment. commitment or shown by the evidence presented at the preliminary examination but not discharged by the magistrate. The bill would require the district attorney to make a motion to reinstate an offense or offenses dismissed at the preliminary hearing before the district attorney can file an information charging the dismissed offense or offenses. The bill would authorize the district attorney to file an amended information that includes the reinstated offenses if that motion is granted. The bill would also authorize the district attorney to make that motion to reinstate the complaint or a portion of the complaint when an individual count or counts alleging an offense were dismissed. By placing new duties on prosecutors, this 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.

Existing law provides a district attorney with the discretion to file criminal charges against an individual. Existing law requires a preliminary examination to be conducted, as specified, before an information is filed. Upon completion of a preliminary hearing, existing law requires the district attorney to file an information against the defendant charging the defendant with either the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment or any offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have been committed. Under existing law, when an action is dismissed by a magistrate, as specified, the prosecutor may make a motion in the superior court within 15 days to compel the magistrate to reinstate the complaint or a portion of the complaint and to reinstate the custodial status of the defendant under the same terms and conditions as when the defendant last appeared before the magistrate.

This bill, the Respect Judicial Decisions Act, would instead only allow the information to charge the defendant with the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment. The bill would require the district attorney to make a motion to reinstate an offense or offenses dismissed at the preliminary hearing before the district attorney can file an information charging the dismissed offense or offenses. The bill would authorize the district attorney to file an amended information that includes the reinstated offenses if that motion is granted. The bill would also authorize the district attorney to make that motion to reinstate the complaint or a portion of the complaint when an individual count or counts alleging an offense were dismissed. By placing new duties on prosecutors, this 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.

Existing law provides a district attorney with the discretion to file criminal charges against an individual. Existing law requires a preliminary examination to be conducted, as specified, before an information is filed. Upon completion of a preliminary hearing, existing law requires the district attorney to file an information against the defendant charging the defendant with either the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment or any offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have been committed. Under existing law, when an action is dismissed by a magistrate, as specified, the prosecutor may make a motion in the superior court within 15 days to compel the magistrate to reinstate the complaint or a portion of the complaint and to reinstate the custodial status of the defendant under the same terms and conditions as when the defendant last appeared before the magistrate.

This bill, the Respect Judicial Decisions Act, would instead only allow the information to charge the defendant with the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment. The bill would require the district attorney to make a motion to reinstate an offense or offenses dismissed at the preliminary hearing before the district attorney can file an information charging the dismissed offense or offenses. The bill would authorize the district attorney to file an amended information that includes the reinstated offenses if that motion is granted. The bill would also authorize the district attorney to make that motion to reinstate the complaint or a portion of the complaint when an individual count or counts alleging an offense were dismissed. By placing new duties on prosecutors, this 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.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1917

Author:(Schultz)

As Amended Ver:August 13, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Mandates, on a prospective basis, and in cases where a defendant is held to answer for at least one felony count at a preliminary hearing, that a district attorney file a motion seeking leave to charge an offense dismissed at the preliminary examination due to the lack of reasonable or probable cause before the district attorney may file an information reinstating the charge or charges, as specified.

Senate Amendments

1. States that a motion may only be granted if the reviewing court finds that the offense has been committed and there is sufficient reasonable or probable cause to believe the defendant is guilty.
2. States that if a court grants the district attorney's motion, the defendant may not file to set aside any reinstated charges pursuant to existing law.
3. Requires the district attorney to file a motion within the 15-day timeline, as specified in existing law.
4. Mandates that a writ of prohibition based on grounds that a defendant was committed on an information not supported by reasonable or probable cause must be filed in the appellate court, as specified, within 15 days after a motion is made to reinstate an offense or offenses has been granted by the trial court.
5. Authorizes a court to review its decision granting the district attorney's motion to reinstate charges prior to trial only if the motion for review was made by the defendant not later than 60 days following defendant's arraignment on the information or indictment, unless the defendant was unaware of the issue or had no opportunity to raise the issue.

COMMENTS

As Passed by the Assembly, this bill: Mandated that before a district attorney may add a charge back into an information that was not included in the order holding a defendant over for trial following a preliminary hearing, they must file a noticed motion, as specified, to reinstate the charge or charges.

According to the Author

"Maintaining the integrity of due process rights is an absolutely vital function of the judicial system. Californians deserve confidence that every charge brought against a defendant is supported by probable cause. In criminal felony proceedings, a judge determines whether there is sufficient evidence for a charge to be brought against a defendant during a preliminary hearing. If there is no probable cause found, a judge can dismiss a charge at this hearing. Under current law, a prosecutor is allowed to simply add back to a case a dismissed charge without a process or explanation. This requires the defendant to carry the burden of proof in filing a lengthy motion to again remove those charges, undercutting due process and judicial efficiency.

"Under AB 1917, prosecutors must instead file a motion to request the reinstatement of dismissed charges. If the court grants the motion, the dismissed charges can still be added back to a case. This legislation strengthens due process rights by shifting the burden of proof back to prosecutors to supply legal arguments that demonstrate there is probable cause for the reinstatement of charges. It additionally fortifies judicial economy, as the motion a prosecutor must file under this legislation is likely to be faster than the Penal Code Section 995 motion that defense attorneys currently must file. This ensures a case is kept on a timely track towards resolution, maximizing judicial resources while better preserving the integrity of our criminal legal system. AB 1917 will only apply to charges dismissed at these preliminary hearings and explicitly maintains an avenue for reinstating them. This legislation will ensure that all charges brought against a defendant in California are consistently evidence based, increasing transparency and accountability within the justice system.

Arguments in Support

According to the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, "In criminal cases involving felonies, there is a preliminary hearing where a judge determines if any charges against a defendant lack probable cause and can then dismiss those charges if so. Under current law in Penal Code Section 739, prosecutors can simply add back to a case any charge that a judge has dismissed at the preliminary hearing, without any process or explanation. The defendant is then forced to carry the burden of proof in filing a lengthy motion to once again remove those charges. This practice undercuts judicial efficiency and due process rights. The Respect Judicial Decisions Act offers a tailored, common-sense solution. Under this legislation, prosecutors can request the court to add the dismissed charges back to a case through the filing of a motion that explains why the charges should be added back. If the court grants the motion, the charges will be added back."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California District Attorneys Association, "Existing law permits the People to litigate a magistrate's declination to hold criminal defendants to answer for specific charges at preliminary hearings under Penal Code section 859b by filing the charges in a subsequent Information pursuant to Penal Code section 739. (See, e.g., Parks v. Superior Court (1952) 38 Cal.2d 609, 612.) Conversely, if a magistrate issues no holding order, the People's remedy lies within a motion to reinstate the Complaint under Penal Code section 871.5, subdivision (a).

"AB 1917 proposes to change that balance, so that litigation over a specific charge for which a magistrate issued no holding order would have to occur via a motion under Penal Code section 871.5. This would create pragmatic difficulties for the courts, and would leave open unanswered questions in recurring scenarios.

"Under AB 1917's proposed changes, the People would be unable to re-file a charge in the aftermath of a denial of a motion under Penal (Pen.) Code section 871.5, subdivision (a). However, the People do have a right to appeal such a ruling. (Pen. Code, Section 1238, subd. (a)(9).) A superior court's decision under Penal Code section 995, however, is reviewable by the appellate court via writ of prohibition. (Pen. Code, Section 999a.) In essence, AB1917 would be an encouragement for the People to litigate the decisions of a magistrate before the appellate courts, rather than leaving the bulk of the litigation before the superior courts.

Moreover, the changes contemplated by AB 1917 do not address general holding orders by magistrates.

"Where the bench officer overseeing a preliminary hearing does not specify the charges for which a defendant is bound over for trial, it is unclear whether Penal Code section 871.5, subdivision (a) would have to be invoked in order for the People to charge any or all crimes in an Information. Similarly, if the transcript of a preliminary hearing supports the charging of crimes not initially addressed by the parties via Complaint (and therefore also unaddressed by the magistrate), AB 1917 does not provide guidance on whether the People would be required to "reinstate" charges that were not included from the outset.

Currently, superior courts also possess the power to address technical errors in the record from a preliminary hearing in an effective and efficient manner under Penal Code section 995a. AB 1917 leaves the status of that tool in question and gives courts no guidance on its implementation."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, "Potentially significant court cost pressure. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would increase pressure to fund additional staff and resources. The fiscal year (FY) 2026-27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

"Potentially significant costs by requiring district attorneys to file a noticed motion to reinstate dismissed charges. Costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)"

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 7-0-2

YES: Schultz, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Lackey

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 8-4-3

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Pacheco, Solache

NO: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Krell, Muratsuchi, Pellerin

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 47-18-15

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Connolly, Elhawary, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Rogers, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Valencia, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO: Bains, Castillo, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Johnson, Macedo, Patterson, Sanchez, Soria, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Alanis, Arambula, Bennett, Caloza, Chen, Flora, Gipson, Krell, Lackey, Muratsuchi, Pacheco, Michelle Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Stefani

UPDATED

VERSION: August 13, 2026

CONSULTANT: Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004302

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1917

Author: Schultz (D)

Amended: 8/13/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 6/9/26

AYES: Arreguín, Caballero, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener

NOES: Seyarto

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 47-18, 5/4/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Criminal procedure: information

SOURCE: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; Californians for Safety and Justice; San Francisco Public Defender

DIGEST:

This bill requires the district attorney, in cases where a defendant was held to answer for at least one felony at the preliminary hearing, to file a motion seeking leave to charge an offense that was dismissed at the preliminary hearing due to lack of probable cause before the district attorney can file a new charging document reinstating the offense, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that felonies shall be prosecuted by indictment, or, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, by information. (California Constitution (Cal. Const.), art. I, § 14.)
2. States that all felonies shall be prosecuted by indictment or information, except as otherwise provided. (Penal [Pen.] Code, § 737.)
3. Provides that before an information is filed there must be a preliminary examination (also known as a preliminary hearing, or “prelim”) of the case against the defendant and an order holding him to answer, as specified. The proceeding for a preliminary examination must be commenced by written complaint, as provided. (Pen. Code, § 738.)
4. Requires a defendant, in all cases, to be taken before the magistrate without unnecessary delay, and, in any event, within 48 hours after his or her arrest, excluding Sundays and holidays. (Pen. Code, § 825, subd. (a)(1).)
5. Provides that the indictment or information shall be set aside by the court in which the defendant is arraigned, upon his or her motion, in specified cases, including if the defendant has been indicted without reasonable or probable cause, or if it is an information that before the filing thereof the defendant had not been legally committed by a magistrate or the defendant had been committed without reasonable or probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 995, subd. (a).)
6. Provides that, without setting aside the information, the court may, upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, order further proceedings to correct errors alleged by the defendant if the court finds that such errors are minor errors of omission, ambiguity, or technical defect which can be expeditiously cured or corrected without a rehearing of a substantial portion of the evidence, and the court may remand the cause to the committing magistrate for further proceedings, or if the parties and the court agree, the court may itself sit as a magistrate and conduct further proceedings, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 995a, subd. (b).)
7. States that if the public offense charged is a felony not punishable with death, the magistrate shall immediately upon the appearance of counsel for the defendant read the complaint to the defendant and ask whether they plead guilty or not guilty to the offenses charged and to a previous conviction or convictions if charged. (Pen. Code, § 859a, subd. (a).)
8. Provides that while the charge remains pending before the magistrate and when the defendant is present, the defendant may plead guilty to the offense charged, or with the consent of the magistrate and the prosecuting attorney, plead nolo contendere to the offense charged, or to any other offense that is necessarily included in the charged offense, or to an attempt to commit the charged offense, or to any previous convictions charged. (Ibid.)
9. Provides that at the time the defendant appears before the magistrate for arraignment, if the public offense is a felony to which the defendant has not pleaded guilty, the magistrate, immediately upon the appearance of counsel, or if none appears, after waiting a reasonable time therefor shall set a time for the examination of the case and shall allow not less than two days, excluding Sundays and holidays, for the district attorney and the defendant to prepare for the examination. The magistrate shall also issue subpoenas, duly subscribed, for witnesses within the state, required either by the prosecution or the defense. (Pen. Code, § 859a.)
10. States that both the defendant and the people have the right to a preliminary examination at the earliest possible time, and unless both waive that right or good cause for a continuance is found, the preliminary examination shall be held within 10 court days of the date the defendant is arraigned or pleads, whichever occurs later, or within 10 court days of the date criminal proceedings are reinstated, as specified. (Ibid.)
11. Provides that the magistrate shall dismiss the complaint if the preliminary examination is set or continued more than 60 days from the date of the arraignment, plea, or reinstatement of criminal proceedings, as specified, unless the defendant personally waived his or her right to a preliminary examination within the 60 days. (Ibid.)
12. Provides that if in a felony case the magistrate sets the preliminary examination beyond the allowable time specified above or continues the preliminary hearing without good cause and good cause is required by law for such a continuance, the people or the defendant may file a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition in the superior court seeking immediate appellate review of the ruling setting the hearing or granting the continuance, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 871.6.)
13. Provides that if, after hearing the proofs, it appears either that no public offense has been committed or that there is not sufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty of a public offense, the magistrate shall order the complaint dismissed and the defendant to be discharged, by an indorsement on the depositions and statement, signed by the magistrate, to the following effect: “There being no sufficient cause to believe the within named A. B. guilty of the offense within mentioned, I order that the complaint be dismissed and that he or she shall be discharged.” (Pen. Code, § 871.)
14. Provides that when an action is dismissed by a magistrate pursuant to specified provisions of existing law, or a portion thereof is dismissed pursuant to those same provisions which may not be charged by information, the prosecutor may make a motion in the superior court within 15 days to compel the magistrate to reinstate the complaint or a portion thereof and to reinstate the custodial status of the defendant under the same terms and conditions as when the defendant last appeared before the magistrate, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 871.5, subd. (a).)
15. Provides that if from the examination it appears that a public offense has been committed, and there is sufficient cause to believe that the defendant is guilty, the magistrate shall make or indorse on the complaint an order, signed by him or her, to the following effect: “It appearing to me that the offense in the within complaint mentioned (or any offense, according to the fact, stating generally the nature thereof), has been committed, and that there is sufficient cause to believe that the within named A. B. is guilty, I order that he or she be held to answer to the same.” (Pen. Code, § 872.)
16. Requires the court to dismiss an action when a person has been held to answer for a public offense and an information is not filed against that person within 15 days. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subd. (a)(1).)
17. Provides that when a defendant has been examined and committed, it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the county in which the offense is triable to file in the superior court of that county within 15 days after the commitment, an information against the defendant which may charge the defendant with either the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment or any offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have been committed. (Pen. Code, § 739.)

This bill:

1. Provides that in cases where the defendant, on or after January 1, 2027, was held to answer on at least one felony count at the preliminary hearing, the district attorney, before filing an information reinstating an offense or offenses dismissed at the preliminary hearing due to lack of reasonable or probable cause, shall file a motion seeking leave to charge that offense or offenses.
2. Specifies that a motion made pursuant to the above shall only be granted if the reviewing court finds that the offense has been committed and there is sufficient reasonable or probable cause to believe the defendant is guilty.
3. Specifies that if the court grants a motion to amend the information, a motion to dismiss alleging a lack of reasonable or probable cause may not be filed to set aside any reinstated offense or offenses.
4. Specifies that the district attorney shall file a motion pursuant to (1) above within the 15-day timeline specified in existing law.
5. Provides that a petition for a writ of prohibition, predicated upon the ground that the defendant had been committed on an information without reasonable or probable cause, shall be filed in the appellate court within 15 days after a motion made pursuant to (1) above has been granted by the trial court.
6. Provides that the granting of a motion made pursuant to (1) above may be reviewed prior to trial only if the motion for review was made by the defendant not later than 60 days following defendant’s arraignment on the information or indictment, unless within this time limit the defendant was unaware of the issue or had no opportunity to raise the issue.
7. Includes a statement of the Legislature’s intent that, notwithstanding the retroactivity rule established by In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, the provisions of this bill shall apply only to those cases in which the preliminary hearing occurred on or after the operative date of the bill.

Comments

When a magistrate reduces or dismisses charges at the conclusion of a preliminary hearing, existing law – Penal Code section 739 – gives the district attorney the authority to override this judicial decision and add those charges back into the information, provided the offenses were shown by the evidence at the preliminary hearing. Specifically, under section 739, the prosecutor may include offenses in the information shown by the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and arising from the transaction that was the basis for the commitment, even if they were not charged in the complaint or part of the holding order. In addition, and to put a finer point on the import of legal vs. factual determinations by the magistrate discussed in the previous comment, if the judge at prelim makes a factual finding that results in the dismissal of a count, the prosecution cannot include that offense in the information, but if the magistrate concludes on legal grounds that one or more charges have not been proved, that conclusion is not binding on the prosecution, and the prosecutor may file any discharged count in the information pursuant to section 739.

When a magistrate dismisses a case at the preliminary hearing, the district attorney has several remedies available, including simply refiling the case via a new complaint or seeking indictment by grand jury. When the judge dismisses a count or counts that cannot be refiled or added back into the information via section 739, the district attorney may also pursue a motion for reinstatement of the count or counts pursuant to Penal Code section 871.5. When the prosecution includes a charge in the information that was dismissed at prelim, the defendant’s only avenue of challenging that addition is to file a motion to dismiss the information under section 995 (also called a 995 motion). This motion can be filed anytime after the filing of the information and before trial, and to prevail, the defense must demonstrate that the evidence adduced at prelim was insufficient to show probable cause, and if such standard is met, the judge is required to dismiss the information.

This bill would create a new process under section 995 requiring the district attorney, in cases where a defendant was held to answer for at least one felony count at the preliminary hearing, to file a motion seeking leave to charge an offense or offenses that were dismissed at the prelim due to lack of probable cause before the DA can file an information reinstating the charge or charges.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Potentially significant court cost pressure. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would increase pressure to fund additional staff and resources. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

Potentially significant costs by requiring district attorneys to file a noticed motion to reinstate dismissed charges. Costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/26)

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (co-source)

Californians for Safety and Justice (co-source)

San Francisco Public Defender (co-source)

ACLU California Action

Alliance for Boys and Men of Color

Alliance San Diego

Bridges of Hope CA

Buen Vecino

California Civil Liberties Advocacy

California Coalition for Women Prisoners

California Public Defenders Association

Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice

Community Healers

Courage California

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Empowering Marginalized Asian Communities

Felony Murder Elimination Project

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Immigrant Legal Resource Center

Initiate Justice

Justice2Jobs Coalition

La Defensa

Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union, Local 148

Milpa (motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement)

National Compadres Network

New Light Wellness

Peace and Justice Law Center

Restoring Hope California

Rubicon Programs

Smart Justice California

South Bay People Power

Starting Over INC.

The Collective for Liberatory Lawyering

UnCommon Law

Universidad Popular

Vera Institute of Justice

Western Center on Law & Poverty, INC.

Youth Leadership Institute

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/26)

Arcadia Police Officers' Association

Brea Police Association

Burbank Police Officers' Association

California Narcotic Officers' Association

California Reserve Peace Officers Association

Claremont Police Officers Association

Corona Police Officers Association

Culver City Police Officers' Association

Fullerton Police Officers' Association

Murrieta Police Officers' Association

Newport Beach Police Association

Palos Verdes Police Officers Association

Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Pomona Police Officers' Association

Riverside Police Officers Association

Riverside Sheriffs' Association

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 47-18, 5/4/26

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Connolly, Elhawary, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Nguyen, Ortega, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Rogers, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Valencia, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NOES: Bains, Castillo, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Johnson, Macedo, Patterson, Sanchez, Soria, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Alanis, Arambula, Bennett, Caloza, Chen, Flora, Gipson, Krell, Lackey, Muratsuchi, Pacheco, Michelle Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Stefani

Prepared by: Alex Barnett / PUB. S. /

8/17/26 10:43:01

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1917 (Schultz) - Criminal procedure: information

Bill Summary:

AB 1917 would require that before a district attorney may file an information charging an offense not named in the order of commitment, the district attorney must file a noticed motion to reinstate such offenses.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 13, 2026

Fiscal Impact:

Potentially significant court cost pressure. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would increase pressure to fund additional staff and resources. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

Potentially significant costs by requiring district attorneys to file a noticed motion to reinstate dismissed charges. Costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

Author Amendments:

• State the intent of the Legislature that, notwithstanding the retroactivity rule established by In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, the provisions of this act shall apply only to those cases in which the preliminary hearing occurred on or after the operative date.
• State that in cases where the defendant, on or after January 1, 2027, was held to answer on at least one felony count at the preliminary hearing, the district attorney, before filing an information reinstating an offense or offenses dismissed at the preliminary examination due to the lack of reasonable or probable cause, shall file a motion seeking leave to charge that offense or offenses.
• Provide that a motion made shall only be granted if the reviewing court finds that the offense has been committed and there is sufficient reasonable or probable cause to believe the defendant is guilty.
• State that if the court grants a motion to amend the information, a motion brought alleging a lack of reasonable or probable cause may not be filed to set aside any reinstated offense or offenses.
• Provide that the district attorney shall file a motion pursuant to this subdivision within the 15-day timeline specified in Section 739 of the Penal Code.
• State that a petition for a writ of prohibition, predicated upon the ground that the defendant had been committed on an information without reasonable or probable cause, shall be filed in the appellate court within 15 days after a motion made to reinstate an offense or offenses has been granted by the trial court.
• Provide that the granting of a motion may be reviewed prior to trial only if the motion for review was made by the defendant not later than 60 days following defendant’s arraignment on the information or indictment, unless within this time limit the defendant was unaware of the issue or had no opportunity to raise the issue.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1917 (Schultz) - Criminal procedure: information

Bill Summary:

AB 1917 would require that before a district attorney may file an information charging an offense not named in the order of commitment, the district attorney must file a noticed motion to reinstate such offenses. By placing new duties on prosecutors, this bill would impose a state mandated local program.

Fiscal Impact:

Potentially significant court cost pressure. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would increase pressure to fund additional staff and resources. The FY 2026-27 Budget appropriated $70 million General Fund for this purpose (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund).

Potentially significant costs by requiring district attorneys to file a noticed motion to reinstate dismissed charges. Costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

Background:

Existing law provides a district attorney with the discretion to file criminal charges against an individual. Existing law requires a preliminary examination to be conducted before an information is filed. Upon completion of a preliminary hearing, the district attorney may file an information against the defendant charging the defendant with either the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment or any offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have been committed. When an action is dismissed by a magistrate, the prosecutor may make a motion in the superior court within 15 days to compel the magistrate to reinstate the complaint or a portion of the complaint and to reinstate the custodial status of the defendant under the same terms and conditions as when the defendant last appeared before the magistrate.

Proposed Author Amendments:

The author has suspense file amendments which would, (1) in cases where a defendant was held to answer for at least one felony count at a preliminary hearing, require the district attorney to file a motion seeking leave to charge an offense or offenses that were dismissed at the preliminary examination due to the lack of reasonable or probable cause before the district attorney can file an information reinstating the charge or charges, (2) require a writ of prohibition based on the ground that the defendant was committed based on an information without reasonable or probably cause to be filed in the appellate court within 15 days of a court granting the motion to reinstate an offense or offense, and (3) authorize the granting of a motion to reinstate a charge only if a motion for review is brought no later than 60 days following the defendant’s arraignment on the information or indictment of a felony.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 1917 Hearing Date: June 9, 2026

Subject: Criminal procedure: information

HISTORY

Source: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; Californians for Safety and Justice; San Francisco Public Defender

Prior Legislation: AB 321 (Schultz), Ch. 611, Stats. of 2025

AB 568 (Muratsuchi), Ch. 125, Stats. of 2013

AB 2952 (Niello), failed in Senate Public Safety, 2006

Proposition 115, approved by California voters on June 6, 1990

Support: ACLU California Action; Bridges of Hope CA; Buen Vecino; California Civil Liberties Advocacy; California Coalition for Women Prisoners; California Public Defenders Association; Californians for Safety and Justice; Californians United for a Responsible Budget; Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice; Community Healers; Courage California; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Felony Murder Elimination Project; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Justice2Jobs Coalition; La Defensa; Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Union, Local 148; National Compadres Network; Restoring Hope California; Rubicon Programs; Smart Justice California; South Bay People Power; The Collective for Liberatory Lawyering; UnCommon Law; Vera Institute of Justice; Youth Leadership Institute

Opposition: Arcadia Police Officers’ Association; Brea Police Association; Burbank Police Officers’ Association; California District Attorneys Association; California Narcotic Officers’ Association; California Reserve Peace Officers Association; Claremont Police Officers Association; Corona Police Officers Association; Culver City Police Officers’ Association; Fullerton Police Officers’ Association; Murrieta Police Officers’ Association; Newport Beach Police Association; Palos Verdes Police Officers Association; Placer County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association; Pomona Police Officers’ Association; Riverside Police Officers Association; Riverside Sheriffs’ Association; San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins

Assembly Floor Vote: 47 - 18

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to require the district attorney, before adding a charge in the information that was not held to answer during the preliminary hearing, to file a motion, as specified, to reinstate the charge or charges.

Existing law provides that felonies shall be prosecuted by indictment, or, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, by information. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 14.)

Existing law states that all felonies shall be prosecuted by indictment or information, except as otherwise provided. (Pen. Code, § 737.)

Existing law provides that before an information is filed there must be a preliminary examination (also known as a preliminary hearing, or “prelim”) of the case against the defendant and an order holding him to answer, as specified. The proceeding for a preliminary examination must be commenced by written complaint, as provided. (Pen. Code, § 738.)

Existing law requires a defendant, in all cases, to be taken before the magistrate without unnecessary delay, and, in any event, within 48 hours after his or her arrest, excluding Sundays and holidays. (Pen. Code, § 825, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law provides that the indictment or information shall be set aside by the court in which the defendant is arraigned, upon his or her motion, in specified cases, including if the defendant has been indicted without reasonable or probable cause, or if it is an information that before the filing thereof the defendant had not been legally committed by a magistrate or the defendant had been committed without reasonable or probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 995.)

Existing law provides that an indictment, accusation or information may be amended by the district attorney, and an amended complaint may be filed by the prosecuting attorney, without leave of court at any time before the defendant pleads or a demurrer to the original pleading is sustained, but cannot be amended so as to change the offense charged, nor an information so as to charge an offense not shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary examination. A complaint cannot be amended to charge an offense not attempted to be charged by the original complaint, except that separate counts may be added which might properly have been joined in the original complaint. (Pen. Code, § 1009.)

Existing law states that if the public offense charged is a felony not punishable with death, the magistrate shall immediately upon the appearance of counsel for the defendant read the complaint to the defendant and ask whether they plead guilty or not guilty to the offenses charged and to a previous conviction or convictions if charged. (Pen. Code, § 859a, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides that while the charge remains pending before the magistrate and when the defendant is present, the defendant may plead guilty to the offense charged, or with the consent of the magistrate and the prosecuting attorney, plead nolo contendere to the offense charged, or to any other offense that is necessarily included in the charged offense, or to an attempt to commit the charged offense, or to any previous convictions charged. (Ibid.)

Existing law provides that at the time the defendant appears before the magistrate for arraignment, if the public offense is a felony to which the defendant has not pleaded guilty, the magistrate, immediately upon the appearance of counsel, or if none appears, after waiting a reasonable time therefor shall set a time for the examination of the case and shall allow not less than two days, excluding Sundays and holidays, for the district attorney and the defendant to prepare for the examination. The magistrate shall also issue subpoenas, duly subscribed, for witnesses within the state, required either by the prosecution or the defense. (Pen. Code, § 859a.)

Existing law states that both the defendant and the people have the right to a preliminary examination at the earliest possible time, and unless both waive that right or good cause for a continuance is found, the preliminary examination shall be held within 10 court days of the date the defendant is arraigned or pleads, whichever occurs later, or within 10 court days of the date criminal proceedings are reinstated, as specified. (Ibid.)

Existing law provides that the magistrate shall dismiss the complaint if the preliminary examination is set or continued more than 60 days from the date of the arraignment, plea, or reinstatement of criminal proceedings, as specified, unless the defendant personally waived his or her right to a preliminary examination within the 60 days. (Ibid.)

Existing law provides that if in a felony case the magistrate sets the preliminary examination beyond the allowable time specified above or continues the preliminary hearing without good cause and good cause is required by law for such a continuance, the people or the defendant may file a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition in the superior court seeking immediate appellate review of the ruling setting the hearing or granting the continuance, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 871.6.)

Existing law provides that if, after hearing the proofs, it appears either that no public offense has been committed or that there is not sufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty of a public offense, the magistrate shall order the complaint dismissed and the defendant to be discharged, by an indorsement on the depositions and statement, signed by the magistrate, to the following effect: “There being no sufficient cause to believe the within named A. B. guilty of the offense within mentioned, I order that the complaint be dismissed and that he or she shall be discharged.” (Pen. Code, § 871.)

Existing law provides that when an action is dismissed by a magistrate pursuant to specified provisions of existing law, or a portion thereof is dismissed pursuant to those same provisions which may not be charged by information, the prosecutor may make a motion in the superior court within 15 days to compel the magistrate to reinstate the complaint or a portion thereof and to reinstate the custodial status of the defendant under the same terms and conditions as when the defendant last appeared before the magistrate, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 871.5, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides that the only ground for the motion shall be that, as a matter of law, the magistrate erroneously dismissed the action or a portion thereof. (Pen. Code, § 871.5, subd. (b).)

Existing law provides that the superior court shall hear and determine the motion on the basis of the record of the proceedings before the magistrate. If the motion is litigated to decision by the prosecutor, the prosecution is prohibited from refiling the dismissed action, or portion thereof. (Pen. Code, § 871.5, subd. (c).)

Existing law provides that if from the examination it appears that a public offense has been committed, and there is sufficient cause to believe that the defendant is guilty, the magistrate shall make or indorse on the complaint an order, signed by him or her, to the following effect: “It appearing to me that the offense in the within complaint mentioned (or any offense, according to the fact, stating generally the nature thereof), has been committed, and that there is sufficient cause to believe that the within named A. B. is guilty, I order that he or she be held to answer to the same.” (Pen. Code, § 872.)

Existing law requires the court to dismiss an action when a person has been held to answer for a public offense and an information is not filed against that person within 15 days. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law provides that when a defendant has been examined and committed, it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the county in which the offense is triable to file in the superior court of that county within 15 days after the commitment, an information against the defendant which may charge the defendant with either the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment or any offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have been committed. (Pen. Code, § 739.)

This bill provides that before the district attorney files an information charging an offense or offenses not named in the order of commitment resulting from the preliminary hearing, they must file a noticed motion to reinstate such offenses, which, if granted as to any charged dismissed at the preliminary hearing, permits the district attorney to file an amended information that includes the reinstated offenses.

This bill specifies that the provision of existing law allowing a prosecutor to file a motion for the reinstatement of charges dismissed by the court during a preliminary hearing also applies to an individual count or counts alleging an offense that are dismissed by the court.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Californians deserve confidence that every charge brought against a defendant is supported by probable cause. In a felony criminal case, a judge determines whether there is sufficient evidence for a charge to be brought against a defendant during a preliminary hearing. If there is no probable cause found, a judge can dismiss a charge at this hearing. Under current law, a prosecutor is allowed to simply add back a dismissed charge to a case without a process or explanation. This requires the defendant to carry the burden of proof in filing a lengthy motion to again remove those charges, undercutting due process and judicial efficiency.

Under AB 1917, prosecutors must instead file a motion to request the reinstatement of dismissed charges. This legislation strengthens due process rights by shifting the burden of proof back to prosecutors to supply legal arguments that demonstrate there is probable cause for the reinstatement of charges. It additionally improves judicial efficiency and minimizes costs, as the motion a prosecutor must file under this legislation is likely to be faster and to be used less often than the Penal Code Section 995 motion that defense attorneys currently must file. AB 1917 will only apply to charges dismissed at these preliminary hearings and explicitly maintains an avenue for reinstating them. This legislation will ensure that all charges brought against a defendant in California are consistently evidence based, increasing transparency and accountability within the justice system.

1. Background on Felony Prosecutions and Preliminary Hearings

In California, a felony prosecution is initiated when the district attorney files a criminal complaint, which is a preliminary charging document accusing an one or more individuals of specified crimes. Generally, a felony defendant must be brought before a magistrate for arraignment within two days of arrest, leaving a short window for prosecutors to decide whether to file charges.^[1] However, in a felony prosecution, the criminal complaint is not the final charging document – the California Constitution provides that felonies must be prosecuted either by indictment – which occurs following the convening of a grand jury – or, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, by a document called the “information”.^[2] The defendant and prosecution in a felony case have the right to a timely preliminary hearing within 10 court days of the arraignment or plea (whichever is later), and the defendant has the right to a trial within 60 days of arraignment on the information or indictment, although both of these rights may be waived, and a continuance may be granted based on good cause.^[3]

After the initial arraignment, a defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing (or “prelim”) to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to hold the defendant to answer in the trial court.^[4] At the prelim, the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to convince the judge or magistrate that probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed it.^[5] The prosecution and defense may present live witnesses at the preliminary hearing, and cross-examine the witnesses of the opposing party. Since the passage of Proposition 115 by the voters in 1990, hearsay evidence has been admissible for the purpose of establishing probable cause at preliminary hearings, resulting in prelims largely relying on the testimony of peace officers testifying to their own experience and reading statements from other witnesses into the record.^[6] Evidence provided at the preliminary hearing may be used to argue for dismissal of charges or reduction of a felony to a misdemeanor, or to request a particular settlement of the case.^[7]

As mentioned above, when a prelim concludes, the magistrate must decide whether sufficient cause exists to hold the defendant to answer in the trial court. In making that decision, the magistrate must weigh the evidence, resolve conflicts, and assess credibility, and if the evidence presented is sufficient, the magistrate issues an order referred to as a “commitment order” or “holding order.”^[8] The magistrate’s role at the preliminary hearing is not to act as the trier of fact and determine whether the defendant committed the crime, but rather to make a legal determination as to whether there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it.^[9] However, the magistrate may make both legal and factual findings, at the prelim, although only the latter are binding on the prosecution.^[10] At the conclusion of a preliminary hearing, a judge may hold the defendant to answer on all, some, or none of charges listed in the complaint, depending on the sufficiency of the evidence. If the judge does issue a holding order, the prosecution must file an updated complaint – the official “information” – within 15 days, on which the defendant must once again be arraigned.^[11]

1. Prosecution Motion to Reinstate Charges and Effect of This Bill

When a magistrate reduces or dismisses charges at the conclusion of a preliminary hearing, existing law – Penal Code section 739 – gives the district attorney the authority to override this judicial decision and add those charges back into the information, provided the offenses were shown by the evidence at the preliminary hearing. Specifically, under section 739, the prosecutor may include offenses in the information shown by the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and arising from the transaction that was the basis for the commitment, even if they were not charged in the complaint or part of the holding order.^[12] In addition, and to put a finer point on the import of legal vs. factual determinations by the magistrate discussed in the previous comment, if the judge at prelim makes a factual finding that results in the dismissal of a count, the prosecution cannot include that offense in the information, but if the magistrate concludes on legal grounds that one or more charges have not been proved, that conclusion is not binding on the prosecution, and the prosecutor may file any discharged count in the information pursuant to section 739.^[13]

When a magistrate dismisses a case at the preliminary hearing, the district attorney has several remedies available, including simply refiling the case via a new complaint or seeking indictment by grand jury.^[14] When the judge dismisses a count or counts that cannot be refiled or added back into the information via section 739, the district attorney may also pursue a motion for reinstatement of the count or counts pursuant to Penal Code section 871.5.^[15] Under section 871.5, a prosecutor must make a motion in the superior court within 15 days of the dismissal, and the only grounds upon which the motion may be made is that, as a matter of law, the magistrate erroneously dismissed the case or a portion thereof.^[16] That is, the prosecution may not use an 871.5 motion to challenge the factual findings of the magistrate at prelim, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the magistrate’s dismissal was erroneous as a matter of law.^[17] In addition, an 871.5 motion is the only recourse for the prosecution when an infraction or misdemeanor is dismissed at prelim.^[18] Notably, the statute also provides that if an 871.5 motion is litigated to decision by the prosecutor, the prosecution is prohibited from refiling the dismissed action, or portion thereof.^[19]

Under existing law, when the prosecution includes a charge in the information that was dismissed at prelim, the defendant’s only avenue of challenging that addition is to file a motion to dismiss the information under section 995 (also called a 995 motion). This motion can be filed anytime after the filing of the information and before trial, and to prevail, the defense must demonstrate that the evidence adduced at prelim was insufficient to show probable cause, and if such standard is met, the judge is required to dismiss the information.^[20]

This bill, when a count or counts are dismissed by the magistrate at the prelim, removes the district attorney’s authority to override the magistrate’s decision and unilaterally add the dismissed count back into the information under section 739. Instead, the district attorney, before charging a dismissed count or counts in the information, must file an 871.5 motion to reinstate those offenses, and may only add them in the information after such motion is granted. Thus, the bill effectively shifts a burden currently borne by the defense - challenging the addition of a dismissed charge to the information via 995 motion – to the prosecution, which would be required to prove that a dismissed charge should be reinstated under 871.5.

Recall that an information must be filed within 15 days of the preliminary hearing and that an 871.5 motion must be filed with regard to any dismissed count within the same timeframe. Although it is unclear exactly how frequently district attorneys throughout the state utilize 871.5 motions, the committee should be aware that this bill will likely reduce the number of 995 motions filed by the defense but increase the number of 871.5 motions filed by the prosecution, shifting pressure on court time from the post-information period to the much more truncated 15-day period between prelim and the filing of the information.

1. Argument in Support

According to the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, one of the bill’s co-sponsors:

This legislation will improve transparency, judicial efficiency, and due process rights in California’s courts. In felony cases, a preliminary hearing is held where a judge determines if there is enough evidence to support the filed charges. If any of the charges against the defendant lack probable cause, the judge can remove the charges from the case. However, under current law, prosecutors can add those removed charges back to a case without any process or explanation as to why the charges are being added back. This leaves the defendant with the obligation of filing a motion to prove that there is not enough significant evidence to support probable cause and get the charges removed again.

This process raises concerns regarding both efficiency and due process in our judicial process. If a judge has already determined there is not enough probable cause to support certain charges, allowing them to be added back without explanation undermines judicial authority and creates unnecessary action. AB 1917 offers a common-sense solution. If a prosecutor wants to add previously removed charges back to a case, they must do so by filing a motion explaining why the charges should be added back to the case. If the court finds significance, the motion may be granted, allowing for a path while ensuring transparency. This legislation strengthens California’s commitment to a fair and just court system.

1. Argument in Opposition

According to the California District Attorneys Association:

Assembly Bill 1917 (AB 1917) proposes to change a process governing preliminary hearings, and the resulting charging informations, that has worked well for more than 70 years without a clear indication explaining why change is needed. … AB 1917 … would introduce serious questions into a well-established process, compel increased litigation in California’s appellate courts, and discourage efficient processing of preliminary hearings.

Existing law permits the People to litigate a magistrate’s declination to hold criminal defendants to answer for specific charges at preliminary hearings under Penal Code section 859b by filing the charges in a subsequent Information pursuant to Penal Code section 739. (See, e.g., Parks v. Superior Court (1952) 38 Cal.2d 609, 612.) Conversely, if a magistrate issues no holding order at all, the People’s remedy lies within a motion to reinstate the Complaint under Penal Code section 871.5, subdivision (a). AB 1917 proposes to change that balance, so that litigation over a specific charge for which a magistrate issued no holding order would have to occur via a motion under Penal Code section 871.5 under all circumstances. This would create pragmatic difficulties for the courts, and would leave open unanswered questions in recurring scenarios.

Under AB 1917’s proposed changes, the People would be unable to re-file a charge in the aftermath of a denial of a motion under Penal Code section 871.5, subdivision (a). However, the People do have a right to appeal such a ruling. (Pen. Code, § 1238, subd. (a)(9).) A superior court’s decision under Penal Code section 995, however, is reviewable by the appellate court via writ of prohibition. (Pen. Code, § 999a.) In essence, AB1917 would be an encouragement for the People to litigate the decisions of a magistrate before the appellate courts, rather than leaving the bulk of the litigation before the superior courts.

Moreover, standard practice for many courts across the state involves magistrates issuing general holding orders after the presentation of evidence at a preliminary hearing. Thus, once the evidence is presented to a magistrate that he or she finds sufficient to support holding a defendant for trial, the magistrate will often issue an order for the defendant to be held to answer for crimes shown by the evidence presented. Such a general order would become impermissible under the changes proposed by AB 1917, as the modified Penal Code section 739, subdivision (b) would disallow the filing of charges in a subsequent information “that are not named in the order of commitment.” Magistrates would necessarily be required to specify which charges are supported by the presented evidence, including those charges reflected by the evidence that had not already been charged by Complaint. Efficiency of the process would suffer, as preliminary hearings would take longer based on the greater need for a detailed record. […]

CDAA is unaware of any miscarriages of justices that are alleged to have occurred based on the current structure of Penal Code sections 739 and 871.5. With substantial procedures already in place to protect the rights of defendants, placing greater demands on court and prosecutorial resources with this proposed change upends currently efficient and effective operations.

-- END --

1. Pen. Code, § 825. subd. (a). ↑

2. Cal. Const., art. I, § 14. ↑

3. Pen. Code, §§ 859b, 1382, subd. (a) ↑

4. Pen. Code, § 872; When an indictment is filed, there is no right to a preliminary hearing per Cal. Const., art. I, § 14.1. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

6. Pen. Code, § 872, subd. (b). ↑

7. Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (b) ↑

8. Johnson v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 248. ↑

9. People v. Slaughter (1984) 35 Cal.3d 629, 637. See also People v. Encerti (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 791 [stating that the evidence necessary to support a commitment to the trial court is a state of facts that would lead a person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and consciously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.] ↑

10. People v. Uhlemman (1973) 9 Cal.3d 662. An example of a factual finding is a magistrate’s ruling on the credibility of a witness, while an example of a legal finding is whether certain undisputed facts constitute a crime. ↑

11. Pen. Code, § 1382, subd. (a)(1). ↑

12. Pen. Code, § 739; People v. Dominguez (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 858, 866 ↑

13. Walker v. Superior Court (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 884; People v. Farley (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 215. ↑

14. The district attorney may not refile if there have been two dismissals under Pen. Code, § 1387; for the defense, errors at the preliminary hearing must be challenged via motion to dismiss under Penal Code §995. ↑

15. Put another way, relief under § 871.5 is not available if the prosecution may charge the count or counts in the information under §739. ↑

16. Pen. Code, § 871.5, subds. (a), (b). ↑

17. People v. Shirer (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 400, 409. ↑

18. Id.; People v. Rodriguez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4^th 326, 332; People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 582 ↑

19. Pen. Code, § 871.5, subd. (c). ↑

20. Pen. Code, §995, subd. (a)(2); Williams v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1144, 1148. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1917

Author:(Schultz)

As Amended Ver:March 12, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Mandates that before a district attorney may add a charge back into an information that was not included in the order holding a defendant over for trial following a preliminary hearing, they must file a noticed motion, as specified, to reinstate the charge or charges.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"Maintaining the integrity of due process rights is an absolutely vital function of the judicial system. Californians deserve confidence that every charge brought against a defendant is supported by probable cause. In criminal felony proceedings, a judge determines whether there is sufficient evidence for a charge to be brought against a defendant during a preliminary hearing. If there is no probable cause found, a judge can dismiss a charge at this hearing. Under current law, a prosecutor is allowed to simply add back to a case a dismissed charge without a process or explanation. This requires the defendant to carry the burden of proof in filing a lengthy motion to again remove those charges, undercutting due process and judicial efficiency.

"Under AB 1917, prosecutors must instead file a motion to request the reinstatement of dismissed charges. If the court grants the motion, the dismissed charges can still be added back to a case. This legislation strengthens due process rights by shifting the burden of proof back to prosecutors to supply legal arguments that demonstrate there is probable cause for the reinstatement of charges. It additionally fortifies judicial economy, as the motion a prosecutor must file under this legislation is likely to be faster than the Penal Code Section 995 motion that defense attorneys currently must file. This ensures a case is kept on a timely track towards resolution, maximizing judicial resources while better preserving the integrity of our criminal legal system. AB 1917 will only apply to charges dismissed at these preliminary hearings and explicitly maintains an avenue for reinstating them. This legislation will ensure that all charges brought against a defendant in California are consistently evidence based, increasing transparency and accountability within the justice system.

Arguments in Support

According to the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, "In criminal cases involving felonies, there is a preliminary hearing where a judge determines if any charges against a defendant lack probable cause and can then dismiss those charges if so. Under current law in Penal Code § 739, prosecutors can simply add back to a case any charge that a judge has dismissed at the preliminary hearing, without any process or explanation. The defendant is then forced to carry the burden of proof in filing a lengthy motion to once again remove those charges. This practice undercuts judicial efficiency and due process rights. The Respect Judicial Decisions Act offers a tailored, common-sense solution. Under this legislation, prosecutors can request the court to add the dismissed charges back to a case through the filing of a motion that explains why the charges should be added back. If the court grants the motion, the charges will be added back."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California District Attorneys Association, "Existing law permits the People to litigate a magistrate's declination to hold criminal defendants to answer for specific charges at preliminary hearings under Penal Code section 859b by filing the charges in a subsequent Information pursuant to Penal Code section 739. (See, e.g., Parks v. Superior Court (1952) 38 Cal.2d 609, 612.) Conversely, if a magistrate issues no holding order, the People's remedy lies within a motion to reinstate the Complaint under Penal Code section 871.5, subdivision (a).

"AB 1917 proposes to change that balance, so that litigation over a specific charge for which a magistrate issued no holding order would have to occur via a motion under Penal Code section 871.5. This would create pragmatic difficulties for the courts, and would leave open unanswered questions in recurring scenarios.

"Under AB 1917's proposed changes, the People would be unable to re-file a charge in the aftermath of a denial of a motion under Penal (Pen.) Code section 871.5, subdivision (a). However, the People do have a right to appeal such a ruling. (Pen. Code, Section 1238, subd. (a)(9).) A superior court's decision under Penal Code section 995, however, is reviewable by the appellate court via writ of prohibition. (Pen. Code, Section 999a.) In essence, AB1917 would be an encouragement for the People to litigate the decisions of a magistrate before the appellate courts, rather than leaving the bulk of the litigation before the superior courts.

Moreover, the changes contemplated by AB 1917 do not address general holding orders by magistrates.

"Where the bench officer overseeing a preliminary hearing does not specify the charges for which a defendant is bound over for trial, it is unclear whether Penal Code section 871.5, subdivision (a) would have to be invoked in order for the People to charge any or all crimes in an Information. Similarly, if the transcript of a preliminary hearing supports the charging of crimes not initially addressed by the parties via Complaint (and therefore also unaddressed by the magistrate), AB 1917 does not provide guidance on whether the People would be required to "reinstate" charges that were not included from the outset.

Currently, superior courts also possess the power to address technical errors in the record from a preliminary hearing in an effective and efficient manner under Penal Code section 995a. AB 1917 leaves the status of that tool in question and gives courts no guidance on its implementation."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Unknown, minor costs to county district attorneys' offices, potentially reimbursable as a state-mandated local program. The bill requires prosecutors to file a noticed motion to reinstate charges dismissed at a preliminary hearing — a new procedural requirement that does not exist under current law. This adds workload to district attorneys' offices, which are county-funded. However, the bill would also eliminate the need for defense attorneys to file Section 995 motions to challenge reinstated charges, producing offsetting savings for county public defenders' offices. The net county impact is likely minor, and may be negligible given the offsetting workload shift. If the Commission on State Mandates determines this bill's requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate, the state would need to reimburse these costs to local agencies.
2. Minor and likely positive impact on trial courts (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). Courts would hear 871.5 motions in place of 995 motions. The policy committee analysis notes that the 871.5 process is likely faster than the 995 process it replaces, suggesting a modest reduction in judicial workload.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 7-0-2

YES: Schultz, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alanis, Lackey

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 8-4-3

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Pacheco, Solache

NO: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Krell, Muratsuchi, Pellerin

UPDATED

VERSION: March 12, 2026

CONSULTANT: Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002375

Date of Hearing: April 15, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1917

Author:(Schultz) – As Amended Ver:March 12, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a district attorney to file a noticed motion to reinstate any charge that was dismissed by a judge at a preliminary hearing.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Unknown, minor costs to county district attorneys’ offices, potentially reimbursable as a state-mandated local program. The bill requires prosecutors to file a noticed motion to reinstate charges dismissed at a preliminary hearing — a new procedural requirement that does not exist under current law. This adds workload to district attorneys’ offices, which are county-funded. However, the bill would also eliminate the need for defense attorneys to file Section 995 motions to challenge reinstated charges, producing offsetting savings for county public defenders’ offices. The net county impact is likely minor, and may be negligible given the offsetting workload shift. If the Commission on State Mandates determines this bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate, the state would need to reimburse these costs to local agencies.
2. Minor and likely positive impact on trial courts (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). Courts would hear 871.5 motions in place of 995 motions. The policy committee analysis notes that the 871.5 process is likely faster than the 995 process it replaces, suggesting a modest reduction in judicial workload.

COMMENTS:

According to the author, under current law a prosecutor may add back charges dismissed at a preliminary hearing without any process or explanation, forcing the defense to carry the burden of filing a lengthy motion to remove those charges. The bill shifts the burden to prosecutors to demonstrate probable cause for reinstating dismissed charges through a noticed motion.

At a felony preliminary hearing, a judge determines whether there is sufficient evidence to hold a defendant to answer at trial. If the judge dismisses a charge for insufficient probable cause, the prosecutor may nonetheless add that charge back into the information under Penal Code Section 739, so long as there was some evidence of the conduct introduced at the hearing. The defense’s only recourse is to file a Section 995 motion to set aside the information — a process that can effectively require relitigating the preliminary hearing.

This bill would instead require the prosecutor to file a motion under Penal Code Section 871.5 to reinstate dismissed charges. Under existing law, Section 871.5 applies only when an entire action is dismissed; this bill extends the same procedure to individual charges. If the motion is litigated to decision and denied, the prosecution is barred from refiling that charge.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Kimberly Horiuchi

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Mandates that before a district attorney may add a charge back into an information that was not included in the order holding a defendant over for trial following a preliminary hearing, they must file a noticed motion, as specified, to reinstate the charge or charges.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires that when a defendant has been held to answer at trial following a preliminary hearing, it shall be the duty of the district attorney to file in the superior court within 15 days after the commitment, an information against the defendant which may charge the defendant with either the offense or offenses named in the order of commitment or any offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have been committed. (Pen. Code, § 739.)
   
2. Requires a defendant, in all cases, to be taken before the magistrate without unnecessary delay, and, in any event, within 48 hours after his or her arrest, excluding Sundays and holidays. (Pen. Code, § 825, subd. (a)(1).)
   
3. States that after the arrest, any attorney at law entitled to practice in the courts of record of California, may, at the request of the prisoner or any relative of the prisoner, visit the prisoner. Any officer who willfully refuses or neglects to allow that attorney to visit a prisoner is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any officer who refuses to allow the attorney to visit the prisoner when proper application is made, shall forfeit and pay the party aggrieved the sum of $500, to be recovered by action in any court of competent jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, § 825, subd. (b).)
   
4. Mandates if it appears from the preliminary hearing that the crime was committed, and there is sufficient cause to believe that the defendant is guilty, the court make or indorse on the complaint an order, signed by the court, to the following effect: “It appearing to me that the offense in the within complaint mentioned (or any offense, according to the fact, stating generally the nature thereof), has been committed, and that there is sufficient cause to believe that the within named A.B. is guilty, I order that he or she be held to answer to the same.” (Pen. Code, § 872, subd. (a).)
   
5. States a finding of probable cause may be based on the sworn testimony of a law enforcement officer or honorably retired law enforcement officer relating the statements of declarants made out of court offered for the truth of the matter asserted. An honorably retired law enforcement officer may only relate statements of declarants made out of court and offered for the truth of the matter asserted that were made when the honorably retired officer was an active law enforcement officer. (Pen. Code, § 872, subd. (b).)
   
6. States when an action is dismissed by a magistrate, as specified, the prosecutor may make a motion in the superior court within 15 days to compel the magistrate to reinstate the complaint or a portion thereof and to reinstate the custodial status of the defendant under the same terms and conditions as when the defendant last appeared before the magistrate. (Pen. Code, § 871.5, subd. (a).)
   
7. Requires the superior court to hear and determine the motion on the basis of the record of the proceedings before the court. If the motion is litigated to decision by the prosecutor, the prosecution is prohibited from refiling the dismissed action, or portion thereof. (Pen. Code, § 871.5, subd. (b).)
   
8. Provides that at the time the defendant appears before the magistrate for arraignment, if the public offense is a felony to which the defendant has not pleaded guilty, the court, immediately upon the appearance of counsel, or if none appears, after waiting a reasonable time must set a time for the preliminary examination of the case and allow not less than two days, excluding Sundays and holidays, for the district attorney and the defendant to prepare for the examination. The magistrate shall also issue subpoenas, duly subscribed, for witnesses within the state, required either by the prosecution or the defense. (Pen. Code, § 859b.)
   

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Maintaining the integrity of due process rights is an absolutely vital function of the judicial system. Californians deserve confidence that every charge brought against a defendant is supported by probable cause. In criminal felony proceedings, a judge determines whether there is sufficient evidence for a charge to be brought against a defendant during a preliminary hearing. If there is no probable cause found, a judge can dismiss a charge at this hearing. Under current law, a prosecutor is allowed to simply add back to a case a dismissed charge without a process or explanation. This requires the defendant to carry the burden of proof in filing a lengthy motion to again remove those charges, undercutting due process and judicial efficiency.
   
   “Under AB 1917, prosecutors must instead file a motion to request the reinstatement of dismissed charges. If the court grants the motion, the dismissed charges can still be added back to a case. This legislation strengthens due process rights by shifting the burden of proof back to prosecutors to supply legal arguments that demonstrate there is probable cause for the reinstatement of charges. It additionally fortifies judicial economy, as the motion a prosecutor must file under this legislation is likely to be faster than the Penal Code Section 995 motion that defense attorneys currently must file. This ensures a case is kept on a timely track towards resolution, maximizing judicial resources while better preserving the integrity of our criminal legal system. AB 1917 will only apply to charges dismissed at these preliminary hearings and explicitly maintains an avenue for reinstating them. This legislation will ensure that all charges brought against a defendant in California are consistently evidence based, increasing transparency and accountability within the justice system.”
   
2. Arraignment and Preliminary Hearing: The start of a criminal proceeding is both statutory and constitutional. During a felony criminal investigation, once the police think there is probable cause to believe that the felony^[1] has been committed, the detectives may swear to a statement of probable cause and present it to either a district attorney for signature or a court, depending on the circumstances. If the court agrees there is probable cause, it will issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest.

The person will be arrested and brought before an arraignment court generally within two days, excluding weekends and holidays. (Pen. Code, § 825, subd. (a)(1); Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) 420 U.S. 103.) The charges are read at arraignment based on an initial complaint^[2] and if the defendant does not have counsel, counsel is appointed, and the issue of bail is addressed. Assuming a defendant does not waive time and is not released on bail, the person must be set for a preliminary hearing within 10 days of arraignment. (Pen. Code, § 859b.)

At the preliminary hearing, the court will hear evidence as to whether the elements of alleged offense or offenses are, at least, sufficiently met to hold a defendant to answer at a trial. Since the passage of Proposition 115 in 1982, a preliminary hearing merely consists of the investigating officer relying on hearsay evidence to support the elements of the crime. (Pen. Code, § 872, subd. (b).) If the defendant is held to answer at trial, the matter is continued to another arraignment in a different court on the complaint.

After a defendant is held to answer, they are brought before the court and arraigned again on the complaint. However, in some cases, charges may be reduced or dismissed during a preliminary hearing. In that case, the prosecutor may add those charges back into the complaint where there is evidence the charges were committed by the defendant despite a court finding insufficient probable cause to hold a defendant to answer on those charges. (See Pen. Code, 739.) If a defense attorney disputes there was any evidence that would allow a prosecutor to add the charges back in, they may file a motion to dismiss. (See Pen. Code, §§ 871.5, 995.)

This bill instead requires that if a prosecutor wishes to add charges back into the complaint following a judicial reduction or dismissal after the preliminary hearing, they must do so pursuant to a noticed motion to reinstate the charges. Existing law only allows a prosecutor to file a motion to reinstate charges where, “as a matter of law, the magistrate erroneously dismissed the action or a portion thereof.” (Pen. Code, § 871.5, subd. (b).)

1. Motion to Reinstate Charges: As noted above, if a prosecutor wishes to add back in felony charges that may have been dismissed or reduced following a preliminary hearing, they may do so if there was evidence of the conduct introduced at the preliminary hearing. (Pen. Code, § 739.) This is despite a judge finding insufficient evidence to hold a defendant to answer on that charge.

However, if a court dismisses a case as a matter of law, the prosecutor may file a motion before a judge to determine whether the dismissal was proper. For instance, if the court dismisses a case based on the defendant’s right to a preliminary hearing within 10 days or right to a speedy trial, but the prosecutor is alleging they were granted a good cause continuance pursuant to Penal Code section 1050, subdivision (g), the court may reinstate the case if the prosecutor is able to show the good cause continuance was, in fact, issued. If the district attorney wishes to reinstate charges following a dismissal, they must file a motion within 15 days of the dismissal. (Pen. Code, § 871.5, subd. (a).)

In accordance with current law, if a district attorney adds charges back in following a dismissal or reduction at a preliminary hearing, the defense attorney must file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Penal Code section 995 (“995 motions”). Penal Code section 995 relates to instances where an information or indictment must be set aside. In the case of an information, a court must set the motion aside if: a defendant had not been legally committed by a judge, or the defendant was committed without reasonable or probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 995, subd. (a)(2).) A 995 motion requires the district attorney to prove that there was sufficient probable cause to support a holding order.

To establish probable cause sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss, the People must make some showing as to the existence of each element of the charged offense. Evidence that will justify a prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. The appellate court will not set aside an information if there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed, and the accused is guilty of it. (People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 582.)

This bill, instead, requires a district attorney to file a noticed motion if they wish to return a charge to a complaint after a preliminary hearing. In existing law, Penal Code section 871.5 allows for a prosecutor to file a motion if an action is dismissed – this bill simply grants the prosecutor the authority to file the same motion if an individual charge is dismissed. This will improve judicial economy by eliminating the need for a lengthy 995 hearing wherein a court may feel they must re-litigate a preliminary hearing depending on the findings made by the original court.

1. Argument in Support: According to the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, “In criminal cases involving felonies, there is a preliminary hearing where a judge determines if any charges against a defendant lack probable cause and can then dismiss those charges if so. Under current law in Penal Code § 739, prosecutors can simply add back to a case any charge that a judge has dismissed at the preliminary hearing, without any process or explanation. The defendant is then forced to carry the burden of proof in filing a lengthy motion to once again remove those charges. This practice undercuts judicial efficiency and due process rights. The Respect Judicial Decisions Act offers a tailored, common-sense solution. Under this legislation, prosecutors can request the court to add the dismissed charges back to a case through the filing of a motion that explains why the charges should be added back. If the court grants the motion, the charges will be added back.”
   
2. Argument in Opposition: According to the California District Attorneys Association, “Existing law permits the People to litigate a magistrate’s declination to hold criminal defendants to answer for specific charges at preliminary hearings under Penal Code section 859b by filing the charges in a subsequent Information pursuant to Penal Code section 739. (See, e.g., Parks v. Superior Court (1952) 38 Cal.2d 609, 612.) Conversely, if a magistrate issues no holding order, the People’s remedy lies within a motion to reinstate the Complaint under Penal Code section 871.5, subdivision (a).

“AB 1917 proposes to change that balance, so that litigation over a specific charge for which a magistrate issued no holding order would have to occur via a motion under Penal Code section 871.5. This would create pragmatic difficulties for the courts, and would leave open unanswered questions in recurring scenarios.

“Under AB 1917’s proposed changes, the People would be unable to re-file a charge in the aftermath of a denial of a motion under Penal Code section 871.5, subdivision (a). However, the People do have a right to appeal such a ruling. (Pen. Code, § 1238, subd. (a)(9).) A superior court’s decision under Penal Code section 995, however, is reviewable by the appellate court via writ of prohibition. (Pen. Code, § 999a.) In essence, AB1917 would be an encouragement for the People to litigate the decisions of a magistrate before the appellate courts, rather than leaving the bulk of the litigation before the superior courts.

Moreover, the changes contemplated by AB 1917 do not address general holding orders by magistrates.

“Where the bench officer overseeing a preliminary hearing does not specify the charges for which a defendant is bound over for trial, it is unclear whether Penal Code section 871.5, subdivision (a) would have to be invoked in order for the People to charge any or all crimes in an Information. Similarly, if the transcript of a preliminary hearing supports the charging of crimes not initially addressed by the parties via Complaint (and therefore also unaddressed by the magistrate), AB 1917 does not provide guidance on whether the People would be required to “reinstate” charges that were not included from the outset.

Currently, superior courts also possess the power to address technical errors in the record from a preliminary hearing in an effective and efficient manner under Penal Code section 995a. AB 1917 leaves the status of that tool in question and gives courts no guidance on its implementation.”

1. Related Legislation: AB 1595 (Schultz), authorizes a petitioner for habeas corpus relief, in order to overcome a procedural bar to relief based on untimeliness or successiveness, to identify changes in law or new evidence that create a reasonable probability of a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the case. AB 1595 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 321 (Schultz), Chapter 611, Statutes of 2025, allows a court to reduce wobbler violations any time prior to trial and allows a subsequent motion to reduce a wobbler only upon a showing of changed circumstances.
      
   2. AB 1036 (Schultz), Chapter 444, Statutes of 2025, increases access to postconviction discovery for felony defendants who were sentenced to state prison.
      
   3. AB 568 (Muratsuchi), Chapter 125, Statutes 2013 clarifies the definition of a "law enforcement officer" for purposes of introducing hearsay statements at a preliminary hearing.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

San Francisco Public Defender (Co-Sponsor)
ACLU California Action
Alliance San Diego
Anti Police-terror Project
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
California Public Defenders Association
Californians for Safety and Justice (CSJ)
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Initiate Justice
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children / All of US or None
Local 148 Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union
New Light Wellness
Orale: Organizing Rooted in Abolition, Liberation, and Empowerment
Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition
Smart Justice California, a Project of Beyond Impact
South Bay People Power
Vera Institute of Justice
Viet Voices
Western Center on Law & Poverty, INC.
Youth Leadership Institute

Opposition

California District Attorneys Association

Analysis Prepared by:

1. Police are not always required to get a warrant before arresting a person on a felony. For the most part, police need a warrant to arrest a person on a felony when they plan to take the defendant from their home. (Pen. Code, § 836, subd. (a).) Police may also arrest out in public if there is probable cause to believe a felony occurred or the crime occurred in their presence. This includes instances of domestic violence. (Pen. Code, § 836, subd. (b).)
   ↑

2. Charges are alleged against a defendant by either information or indictment. In California, the district attorney typically relies on an information. An indictment occurs following a grand jury. An information may be filed by the prosecutor based on probable cause and must be re-presented after the preliminary hearing. Both processes are designed to ensure the state has sufficient probable cause. Probably the most visible example of this occurred in the O.J. Simpson case in 1994. Upon arrest at his residence in Brentwood following the Bronco chase, he was arraigned in superior court standing next to Robert Shapiro and entered a very quiet plea of not guilty. After the preliminary hearing, he was re-arraigned on two counts of first-degree murder and entered a plea next to Johnny Cochran stating he was “Absolutely 100% not guilty.” Those appearances occurred before and after the preliminary hearing. ↑