AB1917, the "Respect Judicial Decisions Act," narrows what a California prosecutor may include in an information after a preliminary hearing. Under the bill, an information may only charge the offenses named in the magistrate's order of commitment unless the district attorney first obtains reinstatement of any counts dismissed at the preliminary hearing via a court-ordered motion under Penal Code section 871.5.
The change injects an intermediate, judicially supervised step before prosecutors can convert dismissed counts into charges by information. That alters charging practice, creates a discrete motion window and transcript process, and raises fiscal and operational issues for county prosecutors and superior courts — issues the bill acknowledges may trigger state reimbursement requirements if the Commission on State Mandates finds a mandate.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Penal Code sections 739, 871.5, and 1009 to restrict informations to offenses listed in the magistrate's order of commitment and to require the prosecutor to move in superior court to reinstate any counts dismissed at preliminary hearing before charging them. It also cross-references the motion requirement when courts consider amendments to informations.
Who It Affects
County district attorneys and their litigation units, superior court clerks and reporters who must produce transcripts, magistrates whose dismissals can be reviewed, and criminal defendants and defense counsel who now see an added procedural pathway for resolution and review.
Why It Matters
This shifts a portion of charging discretion into a supervised judicial motion, potentially reducing downstream amendments to informations and altering plea and case-screening strategies. It also creates a time-sensitive process (transcript and motion windows) that affects workload and may generate state-mandated local costs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites the practical rule prosecutors follow after a preliminary hearing. Currently, a district attorney can file an information charging offenses either named in the magistrate's commitment or any offense the evidence at the preliminary examination showed had been committed.
AB1917 removes that broader path: an information may charge only the offenses listed in the order of commitment. If the prosecutor wants to pursue an offense that the magistrate dismissed at preliminary hearing, the prosecutor must first file a motion in superior court under Penal Code section 871.5 asking a judge to reinstate that dismissed charge.
That motion window is tightly paced by the bill's existing references: the prosecutor generally has 15 days to seek reinstatement after the magistrate's dismissal, and may request a transcript within 10 days. The superior court decides the motion based on the magistrate's record.
If the superior court grants reinstatement, the magistrate is ordered to resume proceedings and issue a new order of commitment for those counts, and the prosecutor may then file or amend an information to include the reinstated offenses. The defendant retains options: if reinstatement is ordered, the defendant can instead waive a re-commitment and consent to an amended or initial information, and may use the record of the reinstatement motion as the basis for any subsequent Section 995 motion or review under Section 999a.The bill also amends the law on amending informations so that an information cannot be amended to add an offense not shown by preliminary hearing evidence, “subject to the requirements of subdivision (b) of Section 739” — i.e., the new motion-to-reinstate requirement.
Finally, AB1917 explicitly contemplates that its added duties for local prosecutors could be a state-mandated local program and builds in the established reimbursement mechanism if the Commission on State Mandates finds a mandate.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill restricts informations under Penal Code section 739 so they may only charge offenses named in the magistrate's order of commitment.
Before charging an offense dismissed at preliminary hearing, the district attorney must move in superior court to reinstate that offense under Penal Code section 871.5; only if the motion is granted may the DA add the reinstated counts to an amended information.
The prosecutor may request a transcript of the magistrate proceedings within 10 days of dismissal and generally must file the reinstatement motion within 15 days of the magistrate's dismissal.
If the superior court decides the reinstatement motion, the court rules on the existing magistrate record; the prosecution that litigates the motion to decision is prohibited from refiling the dismissed action or portion thereof (per the text of section 871.5).
Section 1009 is amended to clarify that informations cannot be amended to charge offenses not shown at preliminary examination, subject to the new section 739(b) reinstatement requirements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: Respect Judicial Decisions Act
This section names the bill. Practically, the short title signals the bill's policy focus — constraining the circumstances under which prosecutors may disregard a magistrate's dismissal at preliminary hearing and insist on charging dismissed counts directly by information.
Limits informations to offenses in the order of commitment and adds motion prerequisite
The amendment removes the prior authorization allowing an information to charge any offense shown by the preliminary hearing evidence and instead requires that informations stick to the offenses listed in the magistrate's order of commitment. It adds a new subdivision requiring the district attorney to file a motion to reinstate any offense dismissed at preliminary hearing (triggering section 871.5) before filing an information charging that offense. Functionally, this inserts a superior-court checkpoint before prosecutors can convert dismissed counts into charged counts by filing or amending an information.
Formalizes motion to reinstate process and transcript timing
This section retains and clarifies the prosecutor's ability to move in superior court to compel a magistrate to reinstate a dismissed complaint or counts, restates notice requirements and limits the motion's ground to legal error by the magistrate. The text preserves an existing 15‑day window to seek reinstatement and a 10‑day deadline for requesting a transcript; it directs the superior court to decide the motion on the magistrate record, describes the mechanics for remittitur and magistrate resumption, and restates appeal and post‑reinstatement review options for the parties. Practically, it creates a discrete, record‑based review with prescribed timing that prosecutors must follow before recharging dismissed counts.
Cross-references reinstatement requirement when amending informations
Section 1009 continues to allow amendments to pleadings but adds an explicit constraint: an information cannot be amended to charge an offense not shown by the preliminary examination except as allowed under the new subdivision (b) of section 739. That cross‑reference ties the rules governing amended informations directly into the motion‑to‑reinstate process and reduces the scope for adding dismissed counts without judicial reinstatement.
State‑mandated local costs and reimbursement
The bill asserts that if the Commission on State Mandates finds AB1917 imposes state‑mandated local costs, reimbursement will follow the normal statutory route. This preserves a path for counties to seek payment for added duties, such as motion practice, transcripts, and superior court time, but it leaves determination of reimburseability and the amount to the Commission's later findings.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Defendants facing dismissed counts: Limits on what an information may allege enhance the finality of a magistrate's dismissal and reduce the prosecutor's ability to convert dismissed allegations into charges without judicial reinstatement.
- Defense counsel: Gains an extra procedural vehicle to demand early judicial review of magistrate dismissals and to leverage timing constraints (transcript and motion windows) in case strategy and plea negotiations.
- Magistrates: The bill strengthens the practical effect of a magistrate's dismissal by requiring superior‑court review before dismissed counts return as informations.
Who Bears the Cost
- District attorneys: Must file timely reinstatement motions and secure transcripts, adding litigation steps, calendaring burdens, and potential delays before charging dismissed counts; this increases workloads for already busy DA offices.
- Superior courts and court reporters: Will absorb additional motion hearings, expedited transcript production (within the 10‑day request window), and remittitur processing, potentially requiring reallocation of calendaring and reporting resources.
- Counties (local government budgets): Face potential new unfunded costs for prosecutorial motion practice, transcript transcription and storage, and superior court workload pending Commission on State Mandates determinations and any reimbursement lag.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits respect for magistrate dismissals and procedural finality against prosecutorial flexibility to pursue offenses shown by preliminary hearing evidence: it strengthens judicial oversight and defendant protections but does so by adding time‑sensitive steps that can delay charging and increase litigation and administrative burdens for prosecutors and courts.
AB1917 ushers in a procedural gate that shifts part of charging discretion into a superior‑court motion process. That fix creates predictable benefits — clearer finality around magistrate dismissals and a judicial check on refiling dismissed counts — but also raises implementation questions.
Prosecutors may respond by filing more motion practice (and appeals from adverse decisions), increasing the workload for superior courts and reporters. The bill preserves an apparent restriction that "if the motion is litigated to decision by the prosecutor, the prosecution is prohibited from refiling the dismissed action," language that could be read to bar certain refilings in some circumstances; that clause is likely to generate litigation over scope and timing if applied mechanically.
Operationally, the embedded deadlines (10‑day transcript request; 15‑day motion window) compress preparedness timelines and could force rushed transcripts or hurried motion practice in complex cases. The cross‑reference in section 1009 means that failure to follow the reinstatement pathway could be raised as a defense to amended informations, which may increase pretrial litigation.
Finally, although the bill contemplates Commission on State Mandates review and reimbursement, counties may face cashflow and staffing impacts before any reimbursement is resolved — and the Commission's determinations often take time and can be contested.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.