AB 292 revises Penal Code section 273.5 to reorganize and sharpen California’s criminal response to intimate-partner violence. The bill makes willfully inflicting corporal injury that results in a “traumatic condition” on certain intimate partners a felony, defines key terms (including strangulation and cohabitation), and builds a package of sentencing enhancements, mandatory minimum custody conditions for probationers with prior convictions, and expanded restitution and shelter-payment options.
The changes matter for prosecutors, defense counsel, probation officers, and victims’ advocates because they change charging choices, raise maximum fines for repeat offenders, create predictable minimum jail terms tied to prior convictions, restrict use of community property for restitution, and authorize court-issued protective orders up to 15 years. Those shifts affect case outcomes, resource needs for courts and shelters, and how judges calculate ability to pay when ordering restitution or shelter payments.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes willfully inflicting corporal injury that causes a ‘traumatic condition’ on certain family or dating partners a felony and specifies prison and jail ranges, fines, and enhanced penalties for repeat offenders within seven years. It defines ‘traumatic condition’ to include strangulation and suffocation, and clarifies who counts as a parent for purposes of the section. The statute also conditions probation, allows payment orders to shelter programs, limits community property use for restitution, and authorizes long-term court protective orders.
Who It Affects
Prosecutors and public defenders will see new charging and plea options; county probation departments must enforce new mandatory jail terms conditioned on prior convictions; domestic violence shelters may receive court-ordered payments; and courts must make ability-to-pay findings and may issue protective orders lasting up to 15 years. Law enforcement must apply the statute’s definitions during arrest and evidence collection, but are explicitly not required to inform victims about citizen’s arrest rights under Penal Code §836(b).
Why It Matters
AB 292 consolidates multiple sentencing, restitution, and protection mechanisms into section 273.5 rather than scattering them across related statutes, which creates clearer statutory triggers for enhanced punishment and longer protective orders. That clarity will change charging strategy, raise the stakes for repeat offenders, and shift some financial relief pathways for victims toward court-ordered shelter payments and restitution.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 292 reorganizes and tightens California’s domestic-violence felony under Penal Code section 273.5. The core offense is unchanged in form — willfully inflicting corporal injury that produces a traumatic condition on an intimate partner — but the bill defines ‘‘traumatic condition’’ broadly to include wounds and internal injuries and expressly lists strangulation and suffocation as covered acts.
The statutory definition of cohabitation is loosened by specifying that holding oneself out as a spouse is not required, and parentage rules rely on Family Code presumptions. Those definitional moves reduce ambiguity about what kinds of conduct and relationships trigger the statute.
On punishment, AB 292 prescribes baseline felony ranges (two, three, or four years in state prison, or up to one year in county jail) and a base fine up to $6,000, while creating stiffer penalties for repeat offenders convicted within seven years of enumerated offenses — including higher prison terms and fines up to $10,000. The bill separates treatment of prior felony convictions and prior misdemeanor or other specified convictions and ties certain minimum custody conditions to prior records when probation is granted.Probation mechanics receive detailed attention.
The court must impose probation consistent with section 1203.097; when the defendant has prior convictions within seven years, the statute makes short mandatory county-jail terms a condition of probation (15 days for one prior, 60 days for multiple priors, and 60 days where the prior was itself a §273.5 felony). The bill also lets courts order defendants to make payments to domestic violence shelter-based programs (up to $5,000) and to reimburse victims for counseling and other court-found reasonable expenses, but requires courts to determine ability to pay and prohibits ordering shelter payments if they would impair restitution or child-support obligations.The statute contains additional practical tools for courts and victims.
It restricts use of community property to pay an offending spouse’s restitution until separate property is exhausted, authorizes courts to issue protective orders valid up to 15 years (with a 15-day notice requirement for modification hearings), and retains an explicit rule that peace officers need not tell arrested victims about citizen’s arrest rights under §836(b). Collectively, these provisions increase the range of judicial remedies while creating new procedural steps — ability-to-pay findings, community-property analysis, and mandatory-notice procedures — that judges, clerks, and counsel will have to follow.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines “traumatic condition” to include wounds, external or internal injury, and explicitly includes strangulation or suffocation by pressure on the throat or neck.
Base punishment is a felony with 2–4 years in state prison (or up to 1 year county jail) and a fine up to $6,000; repeat offenders within seven years face higher prison terms and fines up to $10,000.
If probation is granted and the defendant has prior qualifying convictions within seven years, the court must impose minimum county jail terms as a condition of probation (15 days for one prior, 60 days for two or more priors, and 60 days where the prior was a §273.5 felony).
Courts may require defendants, in lieu of a fine, to pay up to $5,000 to domestic violence shelter-based programs and to reimburse victims for counseling and direct expenses, subject to an ability-to-pay determination and limits to protect restitution and child support.
Upon conviction the court may issue a protective order restraining contact for up to 15 years; modification or termination requires a written petition and at least 15 days’ notice to the prosecutor, defendant, and victim.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Core offense and baseline penalty
This subsection states the core crime: willfully inflicting corporal injury that results in a traumatic condition on a covered intimate partner and sets the standard sentence ranges and a base fine. Practically, prosecutors will use this language when charging a felony under §273.5 rather than a lesser misdemeanor alternative, and defense counsel will need to plan for felony discovery and potential prison exposure.
Covered relationships
Lists the qualifying victims: spouse or former spouse, cohabitant or former cohabitant, fiance or current/former dating partner per §243(f)(10), and the mother or father of the offender’s child. This clause narrows the offense to interpersonal/domestic contexts, so charging decisions hinge on proving the relational predicate; the cohabitation clarification in (c) reduces the need for proof that parties represented themselves as married.
Definition of traumatic condition, strangulation, suffocation
Defines ‘‘traumatic condition’’ to capture a broad range of physical harm, explicitly including strangulation and suffocation as impeding breathing or circulation by applying pressure to the throat or neck. That specificity supports prosecutions focused on non-fatal strangulation — a well-documented predictor of lethality — and signals evidentiary emphasis on medical and forensic signs of airway or vascular compromise.
Enhancements and lookback period
Establishes enhanced penalties for convictions occurring within seven years of prior convictions for a list of enumerated offenses (including §243, §243.4, §244, §244.5, §245). The subsection differentiates prior offenses that trigger different sentencing ranges and handles prior felonies separately, which creates multiple statutory pathways for increased punishment depending on the defendant’s record.
Probation rules, mandatory jail minima, restitution and shelter payments
Directs that probation be imposed consistent with §1203.097 and creates mandatory short county-jail terms where the defendant has prior qualifying convictions. It authorizes judges to require payments to domestic violence shelter-based programs (up to $5,000) and victim reimbursement for counseling and related costs, but conditions these orders on ability-to-pay findings and bars shelter payments that would undermine restitution or child support. It also prevents community property from discharging restitution claims until separate property is exhausted.
Protective orders and law enforcement notice rule
Allows sentencing courts to issue protective orders prohibiting contact for up to 15 years and sets a 15-day-notice requirement for petitions to modify or terminate such orders. Separately, the statute specifies that arresting peace officers are not required to inform victims of their right to make a citizen’s arrest under §836(b), removing an informational obligation on police while preserving the substantive right.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore 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
- Survivors of intimate-partner violence — clearer statutory definitions and the authorization of long-term protective orders increase legal tools to secure safety and obtain reimbursement for counseling or shelter-related costs.
- Domestic violence shelters and shelter-based programs — courts can order up to $5,000 in program payments, creating a new, statutory source of financial support for some shelter services.
- Prosecutors — the statute narrows ambiguity around qualifying relationships and defines ‘‘traumatic condition’’ and strangulation, strengthening the factual basis for felony charging and plea negotiations.
- Victims’ counselors and treatment providers — explicit statutory recognition of counseling costs makes reimbursement an available remedy ordered by courts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defendants charged under §273.5 — higher exposure to felony prison terms, elevated fines for recidivists, mandatory jail days when placed on probation, and new restitution/shelter-payment obligations increase criminal and financial risk.
- County probation departments and jails — the statute forces mandatory short-term incarcerations for probationers with priors, increasing local custody and supervision costs, and creating scheduling and monitoring burdens.
- State and local courts — courts must make ability-to-pay findings, conduct community property analyses before ordering restitution, manage longer protective-order dockets, and process petitions with notice requirements, increasing judicial workload.
- Domestic violence service systems — while shelter programs may receive ordered payments, they will also need administrative capacity to receive, account for, and report on court-ordered funds and to coordinate with courts and probation officers.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between strengthening victim protection and predictable punishment on one hand, and the practical limits of evidence, judicial capacity, and the risk of disproportionate burdens on defendants and local systems on the other: AB 292 increases statutory firepower against repeat and strangulation-based offenses, but those gains may be uneven in practice because of evidentiary challenges, court workload, and the difficulty of implementing ability-to-pay and community-property constraints fairly.
AB 292 packs precise criminal definitions and sentencing mechanics into a single section, which aids clarity but surfaces implementation questions. First, the broad definition of ‘‘traumatic condition’’ and the explicit inclusion of strangulation will likely increase prosecutions for non-fatal strangulation, but proving that injury often requires medical or forensic evidence (e.g., petechiae, voice changes, vascular injury) that local prosecutors and smaller counties may struggle to obtain.
That evidentiary gap could lead to uneven application across jurisdictions.
Second, the probation-mandated jail minima and shelter-payment rules create competing priorities: protecting victims and ensuring restitution versus not imposing unaffordable financial obligations that defendants cannot meet. The bill requires ability-to-pay findings, but courts have limited time and tools to evaluate economic capacity, and prohibiting shelter payments when they would impair restitution or child support forces judges into complex sequencing decisions.
Finally, the restriction on using community property for restitution until separate property is exhausted protects victims’ separate claims but raises collection complexity for courts and creditors, and could prolong enforcement proceedings.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.