CA AB 1595
vetoedCriminal procedure: writs of habeas corpus and motions to vacate.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA AB 1595 pass?
No. CA AB 1595 passed the legislature but was vetoed. Latest recorded action (2026-09-20): Vetoed by Governor.
What is CA AB 1595 about?
Existing law allows a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of their imprisonment or restraint. Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on several bases, including on the basis of false evidence that is material on the issue of guilt or punishment, as specified, or the discovery of new evidence that exists that is presented without substantial delay, is admissible, and that has not been previously presented and heard at trial and has been discovered after trial. Existing law creates a presumption in favor of granting relief through habeas when the district attorney in the county of the conviction or the Attorney General concedes or stipulates to a legal or factual basis for habeas relief. This bill would revise the above-described standards to no longer require false evidence to be material and would instead require that the evidence create any reasonable likelihood it could have affected the outcome of the case. The bill would also change the new evidence standard to instead require that there be a reasonable probability it would have produced a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the case. The bill would revise the presumption in favor of granting relief to instead make a stipulation binding on the parties, if certain conditions are met, unless the moving party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the other party violated the terms or the state withheld evidence, as specified. The bill would also revise the process for a concession and instead prohibit a party from withdrawing a concession if the concession is contained in a return or other written filing signed by counsel for respondent, as specified. Existing law allows a person who is no longer unlawfully imprisoned or restrained to prosecute a motion to vacate a judgment on the basis of newly discovered evidence of fraud by a government official that completely undermines the prosecution's case, is conclusive, and points unerringly to their innocence, newly discovered evidence that a government official testified falsely at trial that resulted in the conviction and that the testimony was substantially probative on the issue of guilt or punishment, or newly discovered evidence of misconduct by a government official committed in the underlying case that resulted in fabrication of evidence that was substantially material and probative on the issue of guilt or punishment. The bill would revise the above-described standards to instead require a demonstration that there is a reasonable probability the evidence would have produced a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the case, as specified. The bill would make other conforming changes. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
Who sponsors CA AB 1595?
Schultz is the primary sponsor of CA AB 1595.
Description
Existing law allows a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of their imprisonment or restraint. Existing law allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on several bases, including on the basis of false evidence that is material on the issue of guilt or punishment, as specified, or the discovery of new evidence that exists that is presented without substantial delay, is admissible, and that has not been previously presented and heard at trial and has been discovered after trial. Existing law creates a presumption in favor of granting relief through habeas when the district attorney in the county of the conviction or the Attorney General concedes or stipulates to a legal or factual basis for habeas relief. This bill would revise the above-described standards to no longer require false evidence to be material and would instead require that the evidence create any reasonable likelihood it could have affected the outcome of the case. The bill would also change the new evidence standard to instead require that there be a reasonable probability it would have produced a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the case. The bill would revise the presumption in favor of granting relief to instead make a stipulation binding on the parties, if certain conditions are met, unless the moving party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the other party violated the terms or the state withheld evidence, as specified. The bill would also revise the process for a concession and instead prohibit a party from withdrawing a concession if the concession is contained in a return or other written filing signed by counsel for respondent, as specified. Existing law allows a person who is no longer unlawfully imprisoned or restrained to prosecute a motion to vacate a judgment on the basis of newly discovered evidence of fraud by a government official that completely undermines the prosecution's case, is conclusive, and points unerringly to their innocence, newly discovered evidence that a government official testified falsely at trial that resulted in the conviction and that the testimony was substantially probative on the issue of guilt or punishment, or newly discovered evidence of misconduct by a government official committed in the underlying case that resulted in fabrication of evidence that was substantially material and probative on the issue of guilt or punishment. The bill would revise the above-described standards to instead require a demonstration that there is a reasonable probability the evidence would have produced a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the case, as specified. The bill would make other conforming changes. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
- Introduced
- 2026-02-23
- Latest action
- 2026-09-20 — Vetoed by Governor.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Schultzauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-09-20
Vetoed by Governor.
executive-veto
2026-09-03
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
executive-receipt
2026-08-26
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 30. Noes 8.).
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-08-26
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 63. Noes 13.).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-26
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
2026-08-26
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 63. Noes 13. Page 6627.).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-20
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-19
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-13
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 13).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-13
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-03
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
referral-committee
2026-06-24
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (June 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-06-03
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
referral-committee
2026-05-27
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2026-05-26
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 61. Noes 14.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-26
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 61. Noes 14. Page 5356.)
2026-05-19
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-05-18
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2026-05-14
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 3.) (May 14).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage
2026-04-08
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
referral-committee
2026-03-04
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (March 3). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-02-24
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
referral-committee
2026-02-23
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-02-02
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
referral-committee
2026-01-17
From printer. May be heard in committee February 16.
2026-01-16
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-03-03 · pass · 8-0
Member-level votes (9)
- Ramos: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Haney: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Nguyen: other
Do pass as amended.
2026-05-14 · pass · 12-3
Member-level votes (15)
- Krell: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Ta: yes
- Fong: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Solache: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Tangipa: no
- Dixon: no
- Hoover: no
AB 1595 Schultz Assembly Third Reading
2026-05-27 · pass · 61-14
Member-level votes (80)
- Ward: yes
- Patel: yes
- Hart: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Lee: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Ta: yes
- Haney: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Chen: yes
- Papan: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Solache: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Krell: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Berman: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Bonta: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Bains: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Fong: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Addis: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Hadwick: no
- Dixon: no
- Hoover: no
- Macedo: no
- Ellis: no
- Castillo: no
- Jeff Gonzalez: no
- DeMaio: no
- Johnson: no
- Davies: no
- Tangipa: no
- Wallis: no
- Sanchez: no
- Patterson: no
- Flora: other
- Soria: other
- Muratsuchi: other
- Celeste Rodriguez: other
- Ransom: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-06-23 · pass · 5-1
Member-level votes (6)
- Caballero: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Seyarto: no
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-09-22T00:47:41.374905Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 1595. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.