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 562: Bail.

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 562 is a senate bill introduced in the California Senate on February 20, 2025. According to its official title, it concerns: Bail. Primary sponsor: Angelique Ashby (D). 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 provides for the procedure of approving and accepting bail, and issuing an order for the appearance and release of an arrested person. Existing law requires the superior court judges in each county to prepare, adopt, and annually revise a uniform countywide schedule of bail, as specified, and requires the superior court judges, when adopting that schedule, to consider the seriousness of the offense charged and assign an additional amount of required bail for each aggravating or enhancing factor chargeable in the complaint, as specified.

This bill would require a court, if, within 21 days after the posting of a bond by a defendant, the terms and conditions of the bond are changed or altered or the charges against the defendant are dismissed, either by order of the court or upon the motion of the district attorney, after a hearing, to order a compensated surety to refund up to 80% of the premium paid by a defendant, if necessary and supported by factual findings, if the court finds that one party unfairly benefits or receives something of value at another party’s expense, and the interests of justice require them to return the maximum allowable premium or otherwise compensate the other party. The bill would prohibit a court from ordering a refund of any premium if more than 30 days have elapsed after posting of a bond by a defendant.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 1

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Angelique AshbyPrimary sponsorDemocraticSenate8

“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. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
  4. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 9).
  5. July 15 set for second hearing canceled at the request of author.
  6. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
  7. July 1 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.
  8. Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and APPR.
  9. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
  10. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 25. Noes 11. Page 1505.) Ordered to the Assembly.
  11. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
  12. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 1204.) (May 23).

Sources

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