California AB 1595: State Council on Developmental Disabilities.

Bill Text

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
 Bill Text - AB-1595 Criminal procedure: writs of habeas corpus and motions to vacate.

• 

• skip to content

• home

• accessibility

• FAQ

• feedback

• sitemap

• login

• x

 Quick Search:

 Bill Number
 Bill Keyword

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• Home

• Bill Information

• California Law

• Publications

• Other Resources

• My Subscriptions

• My Favorites

• Bill Information
 >>

• Bill Search
 >>

• Text

 Bill Text

 PDF2
 Bill PDF

 |Add To My Favorites |Track Bill | Version: 05/18/26 - Amended Assembly
 02/23/26 - Amended Assembly
 01/16/26 - Introduced

 AB-1595 Criminal procedure: writs of habeas corpus and motions to vacate.(2025-2026)

 Text

 >>

 Votes

 >>

 History
 >>

 Bill Analysis
 >>

 Today's Law As Amended
 >>

 Compare Versions
 >>

 Status
 >>

 Comments To Author

 >>

 Track Bill
 >>

 Add To My Favorites
 >>

 SHARE THIS:

 Date Published: 05/18/2026 02:00 PM

AB1595:v97#DOCUMENTBill Start

 Amended
 IN 
 Assembly
 May 18, 2026

 Amended
 IN 
 Assembly
 February 23, 2026

 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE—
 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION

 Assembly Bill

No. 1595

Introduced by Assembly Member Schultz

January 16, 2026

 An act to amend Sections 1376, 1473, 1473.6, 1473.7, 1484, and 3007.05 and 1484 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure. 

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 1595, as amended, Schultz.
 Criminal procedure: writs of habeas corpus and motions to vacate.

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 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 made in open court, or in a pleading, as specified. The bill would additionally authorize the petitioner, in order to overcome a procedural bar to relief based on untimeliness or successiveness, to identify changes in law or new
 evidence that create a reasonable probability of a different result sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the case.

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.

Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to assist a person who is exonerated as to a conviction for which the person is serving a state prison sentence in accessing specified public services, including enrollment in certain programs. Existing law defines “exonerated” to include a writ of habeas corpus was granted on the basis that the evidence unerringly points to innocence, or the person’s conviction was reversed on appeal on the basis of insufficient evidence.

The bill would revise that definition to no longer include that the w