AB 433 authorizes California courts to grant pretrial diversion for defendants who have a qualifying mental disorder and whose disorder was a significant factor in the charged offense. The bill sets a low threshold for establishing the diagnosis (diagnosis or treatment within five years by a qualified expert) and presumes the disorder was a significant factor unless disproved by clear and convincing evidence.
If a defendant meets eligibility, the court must then find the person suitable for diversion based on treatment responsiveness, consent or an identified incompetence pathway, treatment compliance (or inability to consent), and community-safety risk. The statute specifies program mechanics, time limits (one year for misdemeanors, two years for felonies), reporting requirements, rules on dismissal and record access, triggers for reinstatement or conservatorship referral, and a discrete process for temporary firearm prohibitions backed by a clear-and-convincing evidence showing.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a discretionary pretrial diversion process for many misdemeanors and felonies if the defendant has a qualifying DSM diagnosis and the disorder significantly contributed to the offense; courts must also find the defendant suitable for treatment-based diversion. It requires court oversight of treatment programs, sets diversion time caps (1 year misdemeanor, 2 years felony), and mandates progress reporting to the court and parties.
Who It Affects
People charged with most criminal offenses who have recent diagnoses for serious mental disorders (excluding antisocial personality disorder and pedophilia); criminal defense counsel and prosecutors; county mental health agencies and treatment providers who may be asked to accept diverted clients. Courts and county administrators will handle new monitoring, reporting, and potential conservatorship referrals.
Why It Matters
The statute shifts how courts evaluate mental-health causation (a rebuttable presumption that the disorder was a significant factor) and embeds treatment as an alternative to prosecution while preserving safety safeguards and a specific, evidence-based mechanism to suspend firearm rights during diversion. That combination changes charging and case-management dynamics in jurisdictions with uneven mental-health resources.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 433 lets judges postpone prosecution and place defendants into supervised mental-health treatment when two gates are passed: eligibility and suitability. Eligibility requires a qualifying diagnosis documented within five years by a ‘‘qualified mental health expert’’ and a finding that the disorder significantly contributed to the offense.
The bill flips the typical proof burden on causation: once a diagnosis is offered, the court must find that the disorder was a significant factor unless the prosecution proves otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. The judge can accept a range of evidence — from medical records to police reports or expert testimony — when assessing causation.
If eligible, the defendant only enters diversion after the court finds them suitable. Suitability requires that a qualified expert believes the defendant’s symptoms would respond to treatment, that the defendant consents and waives speedy trial (or is otherwise incompetent but previously identified as appropriate for diversion-in-lieu-of-commitment), that the defendant will comply with treatment (or cannot consent for competency reasons), and that the person will not present an unreasonable danger in community care.
Courts must weigh opinions from defense, prosecution, and experts and may consider violence history and the proposed treatment plan.The statute lays out how diversion works in practice: treatment can be inpatient or outpatient and may use private or public resources. A county mental-health agency may be asked to accept the defendant but may submit a written declaration if it cannot provide services.
Providers must report progress to the court, prosecutor, and defense. Diversion durations are capped (two years for felonies, one year for misdemeanors), and the court can hold hearings about restitution during diversion without using inability to pay as a basis to deny participation.On completion, the court dismisses the charges, notifies the Department of Justice, and the clerk restricts access to arrest records consistent with existing sealing rules — but the bill draws explicit exceptions: the DOJ may disclose the arrest for peace officer application requests, and criminal justice agencies retain access per Section 851.92.
Records from diversion (diagnoses, treatment progress, findings about firearm danger) are protected from use in unrelated proceedings without consent, except when constitutionally admissible. The prosecution can also seek a temporary firearm prohibition during diversion by proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant poses a significant danger and that less-restrictive alternatives are inadequate.Finally, AB 433 builds in oversight and exit paths: the court must hold a reinstatement hearing if the defendant commits new serious offenses or is performing poorly in treatment, and the judge can order conservatorship investigation if an expert finds the defendant gravely disabled.
The statute therefore creates both a therapeutic alternative to prosecution and a set of judicial checks intended to address public-safety risks and resource constraints.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A qualifying diagnosis must be shown by a qualified mental health expert and include a diagnosis or treatment within the last five years; antisocial personality disorder and pedophilia are explicitly excluded.
Once a diagnosis is offered, the court must find the mental disorder was a significant factor in the offense unless the prosecution proves otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.
Diversion periods are capped: no longer than two years for felonies and one year for misdemeanors, with providers required to file regular treatment progress reports to the court, defense, and prosecution.
The bill excludes the most serious offenses from diversion (murder, listed sexual offenses requiring registration, certain child-abuse and trafficking crimes, crimes causing great bodily injury), preserving prosecutorial discretion for those cases.
Records from successful diversion are restricted, but the Department of Justice may disclose the arrest for peace-officer application checks and criminal justice agencies retain access to sealed records; the prosecution can also seek a court order to temporarily prohibit firearm possession during diversion by meeting a clear-and-convincing standard.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Court discretion to grant mental-health pretrial diversion
This subsection gives the court express statutory authority to grant diversion for misdemeanors and felonies not listed in the exclusions, but only after considering defense and prosecution positions. Practically, it places diversion squarely within judicial discretion rather than creating a categorical right — judges decide whether diversion is appropriate after the eligibility and suitability gates are passed.
Eligibility: diagnosis and causation presumption
Subdivision (b) spells out the two-part eligibility test. First, the defendant needs a qualifying DSM diagnosis supported by expert evidence of diagnosis or treatment within five years. Second, the court must find the mental disorder was a significant factor in the offense. Crucially, the bill presumes significance once diagnosis is shown; the prosecution must overcome that presumption with clear and convincing evidence that the disorder did not contribute. The provision also defines ‘‘qualified mental health expert’’ broadly, covering psychiatrists, psychologists, certain Welfare & Institutions Code professionals, and other qualified persons.
Suitability: treatment responsiveness, consent, compliance, and safety
This subsection converts eligibility into an actionable program by requiring affirmative suitability findings: an expert must opine that symptoms would respond to treatment; the defendant must consent and waive speedy trial (unless incompetence pathways apply); the defendant must agree to comply with treatment (or be unable to consent but previously found an appropriate candidate for diversion-in-lieu-of-commitment); and the court must find community treatment does not pose an unreasonable danger to public safety. These criteria force courts to evaluate both clinical prognosis and operational plans before diverting a case.
Offense exclusions — serious and sexual offenses barred
Subdivision (d) lists offenses for which diversion is unavailable, including murder, many sex offenses requiring registration, specified child-abuse crimes, human trafficking, and crimes causing great bodily injury. By enumerating exclusions, the bill delineates the population eligible for therapeutic diversion and protects prosecutorial authority in the most serious cases.
Program mechanics, provider duties, and time limits
These paragraphs govern program approval, provider reporting, and maximum diversion lengths. The court must be satisfied the proposed inpatient or outpatient program meets the defendant’s needs; referrals can be to private programs, county agencies, collaborative courts, or assisted outpatient treatment, but only if those entities agree to accept responsibility. If a county agency cannot provide services, it may file a written declaration to that effect. Providers must submit regular progress reports to the court, defense, and prosecution. The statute caps diversion at two years for felonies and one year for misdemeanors and allows the court to hold restitution hearings during diversion without denying participation for inability to pay.
Reinstatement hearings and conservatorship referral triggers
This subsection requires the court to hold a hearing if the defendant commits additional offenses during diversion or is otherwise unsuitable. It creates a pathway to initiate conservatorship proceedings when a qualified expert deems the defendant gravely disabled, and it authorizes the court to consider reinstating prosecution, modifying treatment, or referring the defendant to the county conservatorship investigator. This mechanism bridges criminal diversion with civil commitment options.
Dismissal, record access, confidentiality, and agency access to records
On successful completion, the court dismisses the diverted charges and directs the clerk to notify the Department of Justice and restrict public access to the arrest record consistent with Section 1001.9. The bill prohibits using diversion-related records to deny employment, licenses, or benefits without consent, but it includes narrow exceptions: DOJ disclosure for peace officer application checks and criminal justice agency access to sealed records under Section 851.92. It also permits sharing medical and psychological records among the county administrator, treatment providers, public guardian/conservator, and the court for treatment and monitoring, subject to federal-law limits.
Firearm-prohibition requests and evidentiary standard
The prosecution may request a court order temporarily prohibiting the defendant from owning or possessing firearms while in diversion by proving two elements by clear and convincing evidence: (A) the defendant poses a significant danger if they have firearms, and (B) less-restrictive alternatives will not prevent that danger. If the court finds the prosecution met the burden, it must order the prohibition and inform the defendant; if not, it must not impose that restriction. The order remains in effect until diversion completion or restoration of firearm rights under Welfare & Institutions Code procedures.
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 with qualifying serious mental disorders who would otherwise face prosecution — they gain an explicitly therapeutic option, potential dismissal on successful completion, and statutory limits on how diversion records can be used against them.
- Public defenders and defense counsel — they get a clearer statutory framework and evidentiary presumption to support diversion motions and a defined procedural path for incompetence-related cases.
- Victims and courts seeking durable outcomes — restitution hearings can be held during diversion and the law requires treatment plans and reporting, which can produce accountability and a structured path to resolution outside traditional adjudication.
- Behavioral health providers and collaborative courts with capacity — these entities receive formal referrals and a statutory role in monitoring progress and contributing to dispositional outcomes.
Who Bears the Cost
- County mental health agencies and treatment providers — counties may be asked to accept diverted defendants and must provide services only to the extent resources permit; provider reporting and case monitoring create workload and fiscal demands.
- Courts and prosecutors — judges must oversee suitability findings, hearings on reinstatement and restitution, and adjudicate firearm-prohibition requests under a clear-and-convincing standard, increasing procedural complexity.
- Taxpayers and local governments — as diversion relies on public or private treatment capacity, counties may face increased costs for inpatient/outpatient programs, assisted outpatient treatment coordination, or conservatorship investigations.
- Criminal justice agencies and background-check systems — agencies must maintain access to sealed records and process DOJ disclosures for peace-officer applications, keeping additional record-handling and compliance duties.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB 433's central dilemma is balancing therapeutic diversion and public-safety accountability: it aims to expand access to treatment over prosecution for mentally ill defendants, but doing so depends on finite local resources, shifts evidentiary burdens in ways that favor diversion, and preserves targeted exceptions (record access, firearm restrictions, conservatorship referral) that undercut a fully confidential treatment pathway — forcing policymakers to trade breadth of access against operational feasibility and safety safeguards.
Two implementation frictions dominate. First, the bill relies heavily on local treatment capacity while tying diversion to treatment that courts must approve.
Although county agencies may decline to provide services via written declaration, the law’s effectiveness depends on uneven county budgets and provider availability; counties with sparse mental-health infrastructure will be less able to operationalize diversion, producing divergent outcomes across jurisdictions. Second, the statute creates competing confidentiality and safety imperatives: it broadly restricts the extraneous use of diversion and medical records yet explicitly preserves DOJ disclosures for peace-officer applications and criminal justice agency access to sealed records, and it allows prosecutors to seek firearm prohibitions during diversion.
These carve-outs are sensible safety measures but complicate the promise of a confidential therapeutic pathway and raise questions about routine information flows and stigma.
The bill’s evidentiary design also invites legal and practical friction. By presuming that a demonstrated diagnosis makes the disorder a significant factor, the statute lowers the hurdle for defendants but places a clear-and-convincing burden on prosecutors to rebut that presumption — a high standard in practice that may shift plea and charging decisions.
At the same time, the suitability gate requires clinical prognostication about response to treatment, a judgment that experts may disagree on and that courts are not empirically equipped to standardize. Finally, the interplay between diversion, conservatorship referral, and assisted outpatient treatment pathways could raise procedural and due-process questions about how defendants move between criminal and civil systems, especially for those found incompetent to consent.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.