California Criminal Law Changes in 2025–2026

California criminal law has undergone a number of important changes over the past two years. Some have increased the potential consequences of theft, drug, and property crimes, while others have expanded opportunities for defendants to seek misdemeanor treatment, challenge discriminatory prosecutions, obtain evidence, or pursue alternatives to traditional prosecution.

For someone facing criminal charges, these changes make it particularly important to understand not only what offense has been charged, but how prior convictions, the circumstances of the alleged offense, available treatment programs, and other factors can affect the case.

The following are several of the most significant recent California criminal law changes affecting defendants as of 2026.

Quick summary:

Proposition 36 can turn repeat theft and drug cases into felonies and lets prosecutors combine multiple incidents to hit the felony threshold.
AB 2943, SB 905, AB 1779, AB 1960, and SB 1416 gave prosecutors more tools in retail theft, vehicle burglary, and organized theft cases.
AB 321 lets a court reduce a wobbler to a misdemeanor at any point before trial, not just at the preliminary hearing.
AB 1071 strengthens the Racial Justice Act’s discovery and remedy provisions.
SB 281 requires a verbatim immigration advisement before a guilty or no-contest plea.
SB 524 requires disclosure when AI was used to help write a police report.
AB 1036 expands who can get post-conviction discovery and what counts as discoverable material.
Mental health and veterans’ diversion options were also expanded in 2025.

Proposition 36 Changed the Stakes in Many Theft and Drug Cases

California voters approved Proposition 36 in November 2024, and the measure took effect on December 18, 2024. It made substantial changes to California law involving repeat theft and drug offenses.

One of the biggest changes involves defendants with prior convictions. Under the new law, some theft offenses that might otherwise be misdemeanors can be prosecuted as felonies when the defendant has two or more qualifying prior theft convictions. Proposition 36 also allows prosecutors to combine, or "aggregate," the value of property involved in multiple thefts when determining whether the $950 felony threshold has been reached. (California Department of Justice)

That means an individual accused of several relatively small thefts cannot necessarily assume that each incident will be evaluated independently.

The measure also created a new treatment-mandated felony for certain defendants accused of drug possession who have two or more qualifying prior drug convictions. Eligible defendants may receive treatment rather than traditional incarceration, and successful completion can potentially result in dismissal of the charge. Proposition 36 also increased consequences involving fentanyl and changed sentencing rules for certain drug and theft offenses. (California Department of Justice)

For someone facing theft charges or drug charges in Sacramento or the surrounding counties, prior convictions can now have a particularly significant effect on how a new case is charged and the potential penalties involved.

Learn more: California Department of Justice: Proposition 36 Overview

California Has Also Strengthened Its Retail and Property Crime Laws

Proposition 36 was not the only recent change involving theft. A group of laws that took effect in 2025 gave prosecutors additional tools for retail theft, vehicle burglary, organized theft, and other property offenses.

For example, AB 2943 allows prosecutors under certain circumstances to combine property stolen from different victims or in different counties when determining whether the $950 felony threshold has been reached. It also permits an arrest for shoplifting based on probable cause even when the officer did not personally witness the alleged theft. (Governor of California)

Other recent changes include:

SB 905, which modified California law involving theft from vehicles and removed a requirement that prosecutors establish a vehicle was locked in certain circumstances.
AB 1779, which allows certain theft offenses committed in different counties to be consolidated into a single criminal proceeding.
AB 1960, which created sentencing enhancements when property worth more than specified amounts is taken, damaged, or destroyed during a felony.
SB 1416, which added sentencing enhancements involving large-scale resale of stolen property. (Governor of California)

These changes are particularly important in cases involving multiple alleged incidents. Conduct occurring in Sacramento County and neighboring counties, for example, may not always remain confined to separate prosecutions merely because the alleged offenses occurred in different jurisdictions.

Learn more: State of California: 2025 Retail Theft and Property Crime Laws

Courts Have More Flexibility to Reduce Some Felonies to Misdemeanors

Not every recent change has increased criminal exposure.

AB 321, which took effect in 2026, expanded the circumstances under which a California court may reduce certain offenses from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Some California offenses are commonly called "wobblers" because they can be prosecuted or punished as either a felony or misdemeanor. Previously, an important opportunity for judicial reduction occurred at or before the preliminary hearing. AB 321 now permits the court to determine that a qualifying offense should proceed as a misdemeanor at any time before trial. (Legislative Information)

The change is significant because circumstances can develop as a case progresses. New evidence may emerge, a defendant’s personal circumstances may change, treatment or rehabilitation may occur, or other information may become available after the preliminary hearing.

If an earlier motion to reduce the offense was denied, AB 321 permits another motion when there are changed circumstances. The statute specifically recognizes newly available facts concerning the charge, changes in the defendant’s personal circumstances, or a change in applicable law as possible grounds. (Legislative Information)

This does not mean every qualifying felony will be reduced. The decision remains with the court. But defendants charged with a felony offense may now have an additional opportunity to seek misdemeanor treatment as the case develops.

Learn more: California Legislature: AB 321 – Misdemeanors

California Strengthened Procedures Under the Racial Justice Act

California’s Racial Justice Act prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction, or seeking, obtaining, or imposing a sentence, on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.

AB 1071, effective in 2026, strengthened procedures available to defendants asserting potential violations of the Act.

Among its provisions, the law allows defendants and petitioners to request disclosure of evidence relevant to a potential Racial Justice Act violation. When the required showing is made, courts can order relevant information in the state’s possession or control to be disclosed. The law also addresses access to counsel in post-conviction cases and clarifies remedies that courts may consider when a violation is established. (Legislative Information)

A Racial Justice Act claim is not limited to an openly racist statement. California law permits consideration of evidence involving discriminatory charging, sentencing disparities, racial bias or animus, racially coded language, statistical information, and other relevant evidence. A defendant does not have to prove intentional discrimination in order to establish every type of violation covered by the statute. (Legislative Information)

This can make evidence concerning the way an investigation was conducted, how charges were selected, or how similarly situated defendants were treated legally significant to the defense.

Learn more: California Legislature: AB 1071 – Criminal Procedure and Discrimination

Noncitizens Receive Stronger Immigration Warnings Before Entering a Plea

A criminal conviction can have consequences well beyond jail, probation, or fines. For noncitizens, one of the most serious can involve immigration status.

SB 281 strengthened California’s required immigration advisement before a court accepts a guilty or no-contest plea. Courts must provide the prescribed warning explaining that a conviction may result in consequences such as deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization. (California Courts)

The change is important because two plea agreements that appear relatively similar from a criminal sentencing standpoint can potentially produce very different immigration consequences.

The court’s advisement, however, should not be confused with individualized legal advice. The immigration consequences of a criminal conviction can depend on the precise offense, plea language, immigration status, and other circumstances.

For a noncitizen facing criminal charges, those consequences should therefore be considered before agreeing to a plea rather than after the conviction has been entered.

Learn more: California Legislature: SB 281 – Pleas and Immigration Advisement

Artificial Intelligence in Police Reports Creates a New Area for Defense Review

Artificial intelligence has reached law enforcement as well, and California has responded with new disclosure requirements.

Under SB 524, law enforcement agencies using artificial intelligence in the preparation of official reports must identify that AI was used and identify the type of AI program involved. The legislation also contains requirements concerning retention of the initial AI-generated draft and related records. (California Courts)

For a criminal defense attorney, this can create an additional area for scrutiny.

For example, if an AI-assisted draft differs from the final police report, the differences may raise questions such as:

Was information added or removed?
Did the AI system inaccurately summarize a recorded statement?
Does the final report differ materially from available video, audio, or other evidence?
Did the officer independently verify information generated by the system?

The use of AI does not automatically make a police report unreliable or inadmissible. But where AI was involved, its use may create additional records and information that should be considered when evaluating the prosecution’s evidence.

That could become increasingly important as more Sacramento-area law enforcement agencies adopt AI-assisted reporting technology.

Learn more: California Legislature: SB 524 – Law Enforcement Agencies and Artificial Intelligence

Diversion and Treatment Remain Important Alternatives in Some Cases

California has also continued developing alternatives to traditional prosecution and incarceration for some defendants whose cases involve mental health conditions, substance use, or military service.

Changes that took effect in 2025 expanded the ability of courts to consider mental health diversion for certain defendants found incompetent to stand trial and required courts to consider diversion or other alternatives in specified misdemeanor competency cases. Veterans’ pretrial diversion was also expanded to include qualifying felony offenses. (California Courts)

Mental health diversion under Penal Code Section 1001.36 may allow qualifying defendants charged with misdemeanors or felonies to undergo treatment while criminal proceedings are postponed. Successful completion can result in dismissal of the charges in qualifying cases. Eligibility and suitability depend on the offense, diagnosis, connection between the mental health condition and the alleged conduct, treatment plan, public-safety considerations, and other statutory requirements. (California Courts)

This area of law illustrates why the charge itself does not always tell the entire story. A defendant’s medical history, military service, substance-use history, treatment needs, and willingness to participate in an appropriate program may affect the available options.

Learn more: California Courts: Behavioral Health and Mental Health Diversion Resources

How These Changes Affect Defendants in Sacramento and Surrounding Counties

Although California criminal statutes apply statewide, the way a case progresses can differ from one county to another. Local court procedures, specialty courts, treatment resources, calendars, and available programs can all affect how a particular option is pursued.

That distinction matters in the Greater Sacramento area.

Sacramento Superior Court, for example, currently operates a number of collaborative and specialized criminal courts. They include Recovery Court, drug diversion, Mental Health Diversion, Military Diversion, Mental Health Treatment Court, and a DUI Treatment Court. The Sacramento court specifically notes that its collaborative courts can differ in eligibility requirements, services, supervision, duration, and completion requirements. (Sacramento Superior Court)

Placer County likewise identifies Recovery Court, Veterans Treatment Court, Mental Health Court, Community Court, and a Proposition 36 Court among its collaborative criminal programs. (Placer Courts) Solano County maintains treatment courts that include Mental Health Diversion, Adult Drug Court, Veterans Treatment Court, and other specialized programs. (Solano County Courts) Yolo Superior Court handles both felony and misdemeanor criminal matters in Woodland and maintains separate criminal court assignments and collaborative court calendars. (Yolo Courts)

The practical lesson is that determining whether a defendant may benefit from diversion, misdemeanor reduction, treatment, or another alternative often requires looking at both California law and the procedures available in the county where the case is being prosecuted.

Local court resources: Sacramento Superior Court Collaborative and Specialized Courts · Placer County Superior Court Criminal Division. Yolo Superior Court Criminal Division · Solano Superior Court Criminal Division

Why Recent Criminal Law Changes Make Early Legal Review Important

Taken together, California’s recent criminal law changes do not point in a single direction. Some laws have increased potential penalties and given prosecutors additional charging options, particularly in theft, property, and repeat drug cases. Others have expanded opportunities for misdemeanor treatment, diversion, discovery, and challenges to potentially discriminatory proceedings.

What applies to a particular defendant may depend on details that are easy to overlook, including:

prior convictions;
whether an offense is eligible to be treated as either a felony or misdemeanor;
the amount or value involved in an alleged property offense;
whether multiple incidents can legally be combined;
mental health or substance-use considerations;
immigration status;
available diversion programs;
and evidence developed as the case progresses.

For that reason, someone charged with a crime should not assume that the likely outcome can be determined simply from the name of the offense.

Criminal Defense Representation in Sacramento and Surrounding Counties

Attorney Ibraham Dbouk of the Dbouk Law Office represents individuals facing criminal charges throughout Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, and Solano Counties. The firm handles matters ranging from misdemeanor and felony charges to theft, drug crimes, DUI, domestic violence, gang allegations, and strike offenses.

Contact Dbouk Law Office today for a free, confidential consultation. Attorney Ibraham Dbouk will review the facts of your case, discuss your options, and answer your questions — with no judgment and no obligation.

Call or text (916) 718-7223, or request your free consultation online.

This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. California criminal laws and court procedures can change, and the application of any law depends on the facts of the individual case.

The Impact of Recent California Criminal Law Changes on Defendants