AB 2698 amends Penal Code section 215 to increase the authorized state prison terms for carjacking from three, five, or nine years to four, six, or ten years. The bill does not change the elements of the offense — it retains the force-or-fear element and the rule that a defendant cannot be punished under both §215 and §211 for the same act.
The change is a narrow statutory adjustment to sentencing exposure that will affect charging and plea-bargaining dynamics, the sentencing discretion judges exercise within the triad, and state prison population projections. Criminal practitioners, district attorneys, public defenders, and corrections officials will see the clearest operational effects; the bill does not create new enhancements or alter substantive elements of carjacking law.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends subdivision (b) of Penal Code §215 to raise the lower, middle, and upper terms for the felony offense of carjacking from 3/5/9 years to 4/6/10 years. It leaves the statutory definition of carjacking intact and preserves the cross-reference to robbery (Section 211), including the prohibition on double punishment for the same act.
Who It Affects
District attorneys, public defenders and criminal defense counsel, trial judges who impose sentences under California's triad system, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) are the primary actors affected. Victims and communities where carjackings occur may experience the law's downstream consequences through sentencing outcomes and prosecutorial strategy.
Why It Matters
Raising the statutory triad increases maximum exposure for defendants and therefore changes the bargaining range in plea negotiations. Even a one-year increase per term can alter prosecutors' leverage, the calculus of whether cases go to trial, and marginal prison population forecasts — all material for offices managing caseloads, sentencing policy, and correctional capacity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2698 makes a single substantive change to California law: it increases the three felony terms available for carjacking under Penal Code section 215 by one year each. The statute continues to define carjacking as the felonious taking of a motor vehicle from a person or their immediate presence by force or fear, with intent to deprive that person of possession.
That core definition — the elements prosecutors must prove to secure a conviction — remains unchanged.
Practically speaking, the bill adjusts sentencing exposure rather than creating new crimes, new enhancements, or new procedural requirements. Under California law judges choose among a lower, middle, or upper term within the statutory triad when imposing a sentence; AB 2698 increases each of those three options.
The statute still allows courts to apply existing sentencing enhancements (for example, firearms or great bodily injury enhancements) where applicable; the bill does not alter enhancement law or parole eligibility rules.Because the amendment raises the ceiling and floors used in plea negotiations, it is likely to change how prosecutors and defense counsel approach charging and disposition strategy. Prosecutors will have slightly more leverage when threatening higher prison time; defense counsel may respond by adjusting plea thresholds or litigating pretrial issues more aggressively.
At the system level, a modest increase in individual sentence lengths can produce nontrivial impacts when multiplied across cases, which is why the Legislature's fiscal review process flagged potential correctional cost implications.The bill preserves the interaction with robbery (Section 211): a person may be charged under both statutes for the same conduct, but the law bars double punishment for the identical act. That drafting continues a common prosecutorial strategy — charging alternative offenses to cover different factual theories — while protecting against cumulative sentences for the same conduct.
AB 2698 makes no change to that balance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2698 amends Penal Code §215(b) to change the authorized prison terms for carjacking from 3, 5, and 9 years to 4, 6, and 10 years, respectively.
The statutory elements of carjacking in §215(a) — taking a motor vehicle from a person or their immediate presence by force or fear with intent to deprive — remain unchanged.
The bill leaves intact the current rule linking §215 to robbery (Section 211): prosecutors may charge both but a defendant cannot be punished under both statutes for the same act.
The amendment affects the sentencing triad judges use to select lower, middle, or upper terms, but it does not create new sentencing enhancements or alter enhancements tied to firearms or great bodily injury.
The Legislature’s digest notes referral to the Fiscal Committee, signaling that the change could have measurable correctional cost and population implications even though the statutory change is numerically modest.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition of carjacking (unchanged)
This subdivision retains the existing elements that define carjacking: the felonious taking of a motor vehicle from a person or their immediate presence by force or fear with intent to deprive. Practically, prosecutors will not need to prove anything new — the bill does not broaden or narrow the conduct that constitutes carjacking. The statutory language shows only minor gender-neutral pronoun editing; no substantive element is altered.
Sentencing triad increased by one year
Subdivision (b) is the operative change: the lower, middle, and upper authorized prison terms increase from 3/5/9 to 4/6/10 years. California’s triad framework allows judges to impose one of those three terms based on aggravating or mitigating circumstances established at sentencing. Because the bill raises all three options, it expands the sentencing exposure that prosecutors can seek and that defense counsel must account for in plea negotiations, while leaving judicial discretion intact.
Interaction with robbery preserved
This subdivision reiterates that §215 does not supersede Penal Code §211 (robbery): charging under both remains permissible, but the statute prohibits double punishment for the same act. That mechanic preserves common prosecutorial practice of charging alternative theories while preventing cumulative sentences for identical conduct — a balance that survives unchanged under AB 2698.
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
- District attorneys: The raised triad increases statutory exposure for carjacking defendants, giving prosecutors greater leverage in plea negotiations and the option to seek longer custodial sentences when pursuing convictions.
- Victims and crime victims' advocates: The statutory increase can translate into longer sentences in some cases, which victims and advocates often view as a stronger punitive response to violent vehicle theft.
- Legislators and policymakers favoring tougher penalties: The amendment provides a clear legislative tool to signal a tougher stance on carjacking without rewriting offense elements or adding complex new sentencing schemes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defendants and individuals charged with carjacking: Each conviction now carries higher statutory exposure, which can increase the risk of longer incarceration if convicted or alter plea bargaining pressure.
- Public defenders and defense counsel offices: Higher exposure may increase negotiation complexity and litigation pressure, adding to already heavy caseloads and resource demands on defense providers.
- California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR): Even modest increases in average time served can aggregate into additional bed demand and operating costs, which the fiscal review process flagged for legislative consideration.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether marginally harsher statutory sentences will improve public safety and satisfy victims’ demands for accountability, or whether they will mainly raise incarceration costs and intensify prosecutorial leverage without measurable gains in deterrence — a trade-off between a symbolic tough-on-crime response and the fiscal and equity consequences of longer prison terms.
AB 2698 is a targeted, numeric change to sentencing exposure rather than a broad policy rewrite. That simplicity hides implementation questions: judges retain full discretion within the triad, so whether the change meaningfully increases average sentence length depends on judicial practices, local plea cultures, and the application of aggravating or mitigating factors.
In jurisdictions where prosecutors already pushed for upper terms, the statute may have limited marginal effect; in places where middle or lower terms dominated, the numerical bump may shift outcomes incrementally.
There is also a fiscal and equity calculus. The Legislature’s fiscal review flagged potential correctional impacts — a predictable consequence when aggregate sentence lengths rise — but the bill provides no offsetting funding or programmatic changes.
From an equity perspective, small changes in sentencing exposure can disproportionately affect populations already subject to higher charging and conviction rates, and they can increase the stakes for pretrial decisionmaking without addressing underlying drivers of violent property crime. Finally, preserving the ability to charge both §215 and §211 keeps prosecutorial flexibility but perpetuates the dynamic where alternative charging strategies are used to increase bargaining leverage, even though the law forbids double punishment for the same act.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.