AB 1231, titled the Safer Communities Through Opportunities Act, is a California bill that would let judges grant pretrial diversion to people charged with certain felony offenses. Introduced by Assembly Member Elhawary on February 21, 2025, the bill would add new sections to the Penal Code starting at Section 1001.98, creating a structured path for eligible defendants to complete a court-supervised plan instead of going to trial. If the defendant finishes the plan, the charges are dismissed and the arrest is treated as if it never happened.
How Diversion Would Work
Pretrial diversion pauses a criminal case before trial. In place of the usual court process, the defendant follows a court-approved plan that can include treatment, job training, community-based services, or other conditions the judge sets. The case stays on hold for up to 24 months while the defendant works through it.
A defendant charged with an eligible felony can ask the court for diversion at any point before trial begins. The judge then decides whether diversion fits that person. It is not automatic. The court has full discretion to say no.
Before approving diversion, the judge must make two findings: that the plan will reduce any unreasonable risk to public safety, and that the defendant is likely to benefit from the services in the plan. Both are required.
Which Felonies Qualify
AB 1231 covers felonies that are either eligible for county jail sentencing or classified as alternate felony-misdemeanor offenses, often called wobblers. That reaches a wide range of nonviolent and non-serious charges. The bill then draws firm lines around what it will not touch.
The following categories are excluded:
- Any offense classified as serious or violent under California law
- Any charge alleging the defendant caused great or serious bodily injury
- Offenses involving the personal use of a firearm during the crime
- Driving under the influence charged as a felony
- Any charge requiring sex offender registration upon conviction
- Any offense involving domestic violence
- Violations of California’s stalking statute
- Offenses involving the use or deployment of weapons of mass destruction
Violent crime, sexual offenses, and cases involving firearms or serious injury stay outside the framework entirely. One procedural detail: if a court has already reduced a felony to a misdemeanor under Penal Code Section 17(b), misdemeanor diversion under Section 1001.95 applies instead. AB 1231 is for cases that remain at the felony level.
What the Judge Considers
A judge weighing a diversion request can take input from defense counsel, the prosecution, probation or pretrial services, family members, and service providers. The bill does not limit the court to any single source.
Factors a judge may weigh include the defendant’s history of trauma, past victimization, youth, age, and health conditions, along with other mitigating circumstances recognized under the California Rules of Court. One category carries particular weight: a defendant who has survived human trafficking, domestic violence, or sexual assault. That history must be treated as a strong indicator that diversion is appropriate.
Supervision Models
The defendant proposes a diversion plan to the court and serves a copy on the prosecution. The plan must recommend one of two supervision structures, and the court decides which applies.
Single Agency Supervision
A treatment agency runs the plan on its own. That might be a community-based organization, a job training center, or a reentry provider. Courts are directed to prefer this model unless it is impractical or the judge finds that a higher level of oversight is needed for public safety.
Dual Agency Supervision
Responsibility is split between a treatment agency and a county probation or pretrial services department. The treatment agency runs the rehabilitation programming while probation provides an additional layer of court-connected oversight. Judges can order this model when single agency supervision alone would not adequately address public safety concerns.
Under either model, the court can impose any terms, conditions, or programs it considers appropriate based on the defendant’s individual strengths and needs, drawing on recommendations from the defendant, a social worker, a behavioral health worker, or a healthcare professional.
Conditions During Diversion
Two requirements apply in every case. The defendant must pay full restitution to any victim. But the bill states that inability to pay restitution cannot be used to deny diversion or to find that the defendant has failed the program. Indigent defendants are not penalized for their finances, and the victim’s right to be made whole is preserved.
Progress reports also run throughout the diversion period. Under single agency supervision, the treatment agency sends reports to the court, defense, and prosecution every three months. Under dual agency supervision, reports go first to the probation department, which forwards copies to the court and both attorneys within five judicial days. These quarterly check-ins keep the court informed about whether the plan is working.
What Happens if the Defendant Fails
Diversion is not a free pass. The court can hold a hearing to reinstate the criminal case if any of the following occurs:
- The defendant picks up a new misdemeanor charge that reflects a propensity for violence while on diversion
- The defendant is charged with any new felony during the diversion period
- The defendant performs unsatisfactorily, shown by repeated or significant noncompliance, and the court believes no reasonably available changes to the plan can address the public safety risk
If the court finds that the defendant has not met the conditions, it can terminate the program and restart the original criminal proceedings. The case picks up where it left off.
What Successful Completion Means
When a defendant finishes the diversion period and has complied with all terms, the court must dismiss the charges. The bill uses mandatory language, “shall dismiss,” leaving no discretion once conditions are satisfied.
The record consequences go further than dismissal. Upon successful completion, the arrest that led to diversion is legally deemed never to have occurred. The court must also order access to the arrest record restricted under Penal Code Section 1001.9. The defendant can generally respond to questions about their criminal history as though the arrest and charges never existed, with limited exceptions for certain law enforcement and licensing inquiries. A felony arrest that ends in successful diversion leaves no lasting criminal record.
How It Differs From Existing Diversion Programs
California already has several pretrial diversion options, but each targets a specific population or offense. AB 1231 fills a gap by creating a general-purpose felony diversion that does not require a particular diagnosis or background.
Misdemeanor diversion under Penal Code Section 1001.95 already gives judges broad discretion for misdemeanor cases, with limited exclusions. AB 1231 extends a similar framework to the felony side, though with a longer list of excluded offenses and added safeguards like mandatory supervision and quarterly progress reports.
Mental health diversion under Section 1001.36 reaches both misdemeanor and felony defendants, but only where a diagnosed mental disorder was a significant factor in the offense. Military veteran diversion under Section 1001.80 serves service members whose military-related trauma contributed to the offense. Both programs require a specific causal link between the defendant’s condition and the crime. AB 1231 does not require any diagnosis or causal link. It opens diversion to a broader range of defendants charged with eligible felonies.
Where the Bill Stands
AB 1231 was amended in the California Senate on September 5, 2025, and had been engrossed, meaning it passed the Assembly and was sent to the Senate. It has not been signed into law. Because the bill is still moving through the legislature, its provisions could change before final passage. The current version is available on the California Legislative Information website.
The bill has drawn both support and opposition. The Vera Institute of Justice backed it, pointing to recidivism data showing that participants in California’s existing diversion programs return to the justice system at a rate of 15.3 percent, compared to 41.9 percent for people released from state prison. The Chief Probation Officers of California opposed the bill, raising concerns about supervision quality, particularly under single agency supervision where a treatment provider with no court connection or peace officer authority could be overseeing a felony defendant. The group also objected to letting defendants propose their own plans and recommend their own supervisors for felony-level cases.