Skip to main content
Independent and nonpartisan. SaveYourState is a civic information resource. It is not a government website and is not affiliated with any government agency, party, or campaign.

California · 2025–26 Regular Session · Senate Bill

SB 1373: Diversion.

Passed one chamber Official data

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed one chamber
  4. Passed both chambers
  5. Enacted

Last official action: ·Record last updated:

Plain-language summary

SB 1373 is a senate bill introduced in the California Senate on February 20, 2026. According to its official title, it concerns: Diversion. Primary sponsor: Shannon Grove (R). It lists 4 additional sponsors. Most recent recorded action (August 13, 2026): August 13 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

Generated automatically from the official title, sponsor list, and status record only. It does not characterize the bill’s purpose or effects. How summaries are written

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

Existing law authorizes a court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. Existing law prescribes specified criteria for a defendant to be eligible for pretrial diversion and for a court to consider whether the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion. Existing law authorizes a court to require the defendant to make a prima facie showing that they will meet the minimum requirements of eligibility for diversion and that the defendant and the offense are suitable for diversion and authorizes the court, if that showing is not made, to summarily deny diversion and grant alternate relief.

This bill, if the court intends to summarily grant diversion or any other relief, would require the court to conduct an additional hearing if requested by either party. By increasing the duties on local 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.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 3 · Republican 2

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Shannon GrovePrimary sponsorRepublicanSenate12
Maggy KrellCo-sponsorDemocraticAssembly6
Roger NielloCo-sponsorRepublicanSenate6
Susan RubioCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate22
Henry SternCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate27

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

  1. August 13 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
  2. August 5 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.
  3. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 30).
  4. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
  5. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
  6. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
  7. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
  8. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 32. Noes 0. Page 4522.) Ordered to the Assembly.
  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 4275.) (May 14).
  11. Set for hearing May 14.
  12. May 4 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

Sources

  1. California Legislative Information — pubinfo database export
  2. Official bill page