Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Good morning. Welcome to the April 15, 2026 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 38 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing. Before we begin, I have a housekeeping note to cover.

AB 2457 by Mr. Connolly has been pulled over to the next hearing. We encourage the public to provide written testimony before before the hearing by visiting the committee website at Apro.assembly.ca.gov.

Please note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is open for attendance. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its livestream on the assembly's website.

Will accept public comment on any bill placed on the suspense file by the committee today for which the author waived presentation before the close of the regular order hearing.

Testimony on any such bill will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, and position on the bill. The committee will allow no more than forty minutes of testimony in total.

As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation, which were posted outside the door.

I encourage members of the public who are in attendance to be aware of and observe those rules. Any violation in you may be removed. Establishing a quorum, let's do that.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum, and Members will still be joining, hopefully. With that, I wanna take up the consent calendar. I wanna dispense this within, two separate motions.

The first motion is do passed, applies to bills that enjoy unanimous support in this committee and are eligible for the assembly floor consent calendar, consistent with the assembly rules. Do we have a motion for this?

We have a motion and a second.

Consent calendar, these are all AB's. 1587 Ta, 1736 Pellerin, 1760 Arambula, 1951 Dixon, 1981 Aguiar-Curry, 2056 Alvarez, 2086 Ellis, 2502 Pellerin, 2542 Patterson.

That those are out on an A roll call and I see miss Calderon is joining us. Thank you. The second motion due pass applies to bills that also enjoy unanimous support in this committee, but are not eligible for the assembly floor consent calendar.

Excuse me. Consistent with assembly rules. Do we have a motion on this? We have a motion and a second.

Consent calendar part two. These are all AB's. 1560 Tangipa, 1625 Nguyen, and 2179 Patel.

Those are all also out on an A roll call. With that, I'd like to dispense with the suspense calendar. Madam secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar?

These are all AB's. 1539, 1602, 1604, 1616, 1618, 1707, 1731, 1746, 1754, 1787, 1788, 1827, 1831, 1866, 1877, 1941, 1950, 1969, 2115, 2462, 2472, 2494, 2593, and 2607.

The suspense calendar is deemed approved. Thank you, Mr. Tangipa, for joining us and miss Krell. Thank you, Mr. Solache, for joining us today. I think we're at eight.

Okay. We are so excited to be having mister Schultz present his bill today. And, AB 1917, and his primary witness is a constituent of mine. In fact, our daughters go to the same school. So, Mr. Clement, if you wanna come come up here next to Mr. Schultz, And you may begin when you are ready.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. Sorry to keep you all waiting. I am pleased to present AB 1917 this morning, which addresses judicial inefficiency and would strengthen due process rights.

Briefly, when a judge dismisses a felony criminal charge for having no probable cause at a preliminary hearing, a prosecutor under current law can simply add the charge back.

This would create this creates unnecessary social and economic costs slowing down court proceedings by requiring defense attorneys to file lengthy 995 motions.

As noted in the committee analysis, these 995 motions effectively require relitigating the preliminary hearing almost in its entirety. AB 1917 would instead require that prosecutors file an 871.5 motion to reinstate those dismissed charges.

Again, as stated in the, excellently written committee analysis, this is likely to have a positive impact on trial courts as 871.5 motions are likely faster, and the shift will likely lower the rates of those motions altogether.

The shift will not only strengthen transparency and fairness in our legal system, but will also fortify judicial economy and resource utilization to address unnecessary costs.

Testifying in support today is someone that the Chair does know quite well, Tal Clement, deputy public defender with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office.

And at the appropriate time, we'll respectfully request an Aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Clement. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Wicks and members of the committee. My name is Tal Clement, deputy public defender of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. I'm testifying in support of AB 1917, the Respect Judicial Decisions Act. This bill is bay is built on a basic principle.

People should not face criminal charges that are not supported by evidence. If a judge determines after listening to the evidence that there is not probable cause to support a charge, that charge shouldn't continue to hang over a person's head and courts shouldn't spend additional time on unnecessary and costly litigation.

Here is why the AB 1917 is needed. Under current law, when a judge removes a charge at the preliminary hearing due to a lack of evidence, a prosecutor can simply add the charge back to a case without providing any reason or explanation.

As a result, courts are often bogged down by litigating charges that are not supported by evidence. AB 1917 is narrowly tailored to address this issue.

It would simply require prosecutors to file a motion explaining why a charge that was removed by the magistrate judge should be added back to the case. If the motion is granted, the charge would be added back to the case.

This simple amendment to the court process will make courts more efficient, reduce state costs, and increase transparency and fairness. AB 1917 will reduce unnecessary litigation and save California resources.

Prosecutors will exercise more discretion in deciding what charges to bring generally, knowing that each charge must be supported by probable cause both at a preliminary hearing and afterwards if they choose to file a motion to reinstate.

Under AB 1917, after a magistrate judge dismisses a charge for lack of evidence, prosecutors will use discretion in determining whether to file an eight seventy one point five. Likely, they will file them only when their motion to reinstates have merit.

Lastly, cases will resolve faster and outcomes will be fairer when we ensure that charges against accused individuals are backed by evidence. AB 1917 will improve court efficiency, fairness, and due process.

Please vote aye. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support?

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, cosponsor, and on behalf of the following organizations in support, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, South Bay People Power, Gwen Visino, California Coalition for Women Prisoners.

Good morning. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, proud cosponsor and support. Also, on behalf of our fellow cosponsor California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and Support. Great. Any primary witnesses in opposition?

Any additional folks wish to express opposition? We will bring it back to committee. Any questions?

I'll move the the bill.

We have a motion. We have a second. And we're actually gonna do a a roll call on this bill.

Aye. So this is on call. We're waiting for a couple Members to come to committee, but thank you for the presentation.

Thank you all.

I'd like to open up the hearing room to comments by members of the public on any bill not presented in committee today. Please be sure to limit your comment to name, organization, if any, and position in your bill.

Thank you. I wanna now we're we're waiting for a couple of members to come back, to come to committee here to add on. In the meantime so if you're on the Appropriations Committee, if you could come, that would be great.

If there's anyone in the hearing room who'd like to present Mr. Micheli, I see is here. Of course, first up to bat. Go for it.

On time this this time. Not running up. Madam Chair, two bills. Chris Micheli on behalf of Full Well, a nonprofit advocating for sustainable food policy, a cosponsor of AB 1731 by miss Wilson.

And then on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California in support of AB 2607 by miss Nguyen. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We will wait until we get a couple more Members from the committee here.

AB1917. [Roll Call]

That bill is out, and we are meeting adjourned.