April 15, 2026 · Appropriations · 1,636 words · 6 speakers · 10 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Good morning Welcome to the April 15th 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 conley 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 live stream on the Assembly's website. We 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 40 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. Wicks? Here. Wicks, present. Hoover? Here. Hoover, present. Arambula? Here. Arambula, present. Calderon? Calusa? Here. Calusa present. Dixon. Here. Dixon present. Fong. Here. Fong present. Mark Gonzalez. Here. Mark Gonzalez present. Krell. Mirasuchi. Pacheco. Pelerin. Celache. Ta. Here. Ta present. Tongi Pa. We have a quorum And members will still be joining Hopefully With that I want to take up the consent calendar I want to dispense this within Two separate motions The first motion is do pass 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 A-Bs. 1587 Taw. 1736 Pellerin. 1760 Arambula. 1951 Dixon. 1981 Aguirre-Curry. 2056 Alvarez. 2086 Ellis. 2502 Pellerin, 2542 Patterson. Those are out on an A roll call, and I see Ms. Calderon is joining us. Thank you. The second motion do pass applies to bills that also enjoy unanimous support in this committee but are not eligible for the assembly floor consent calendar, consistent with assembly rules. Do we have a motion on this? No. Do we have a motion and a second? Consent calendar part two. These are all ABs. 1560 Tangipah, 1625 Wynn, and 2179 Patel. Those are 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 ABs, 1539, 1602, 1604, 1616, 1613. 18, 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. Thank you Mr. Tangapah for joining us and Ms. Krell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Slotty for joining us today. Thank you. I think we're at 8. Okay. I think we should just have... Let me just Oh wait there Nick Okay never mind Great Okay Okay we are so excited to be having Mr 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 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 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 re-litigating 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 will 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 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 871 Likely they will file them only when their motion to reinstate 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, co-sponsor, and on behalf of the following organizations in support, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, South Bay People Power, Buen Vecino, California Coalition for Women Prisoners.
Good morning, Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, proud co-sponsor and support. Also on behalf of our fellow co-sponsor, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support.
Thank you. 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 bill. We have a motion. We have a second. And we're actually going to do a roll call on this bill. Aye. Thank you. 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. Thank you. I want to now we're waiting for a couple 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. 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. If there's anyone in the hearing room who'd like to present Mr. McKaylee, I see is here. Of course, first up to bat, go for it.
On time this time, not running up. Madam Chair, two bills. Chris McKaylee on behalf of Fullwell, a nonprofit advocating for sustainable food policy, a co-sponsor of AB 1731 by Ms. Wilson, and then on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California in support of AB 2607 by Ms. Wynn.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We will wait until we get a couple more members from the committee here. Thank you Thank you. AB 1917. Aye. Blanco? Pacheco, sorry. Sorry. Hi. Pacheco, aye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. For AB1917, Schultz. Aye. That bill is out and we are meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.