Past Proposals

The Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule that governs that committee to broaden its membership definition of “presiding judge.” Under the existing rule, only a current or immediate past presiding judge is eligible for membership. The proposal would redefine a “presiding judge” to mean a current presiding judge or one who has served within six years of the year of the appointment as a committee member. In addition, it would extend eligibility for reappointment to an existing presiding or past presiding judge member. Finally, it would limit the Judicial Council’s nonvoting members to the chief administrative officer and the director of Budget Services, thus removing the chief of staff and chief operating officer.

The Advisory Committee on Providing Access and Fairness proposes new rule 2.1009 to establish a process for a person with a disability to request a permanent medical excuse from jury service in cases where the individual, with or without accommodations, including the provision of auxiliary aides or services, is incapable of performing jury service. Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) considered authoring a bill in this area last year but deferred introducing the legislation in order to give the Judicial Council the opportunity to address the issue through the adoption of a uniform rule of court.

The Appellate Advisory Committee and the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee recommend amending California Rules of Court for the expedited resolution of actions and proceedings brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As mandated by the Legislature, the Judicial Council previously adopted rules and established procedures to implement a statutory scheme for the expedited resolution of actions and proceedings brought under CEQA challenging certain projects that qualified for such streamlined procedures. This proposal amends several rules to implement recent legislation requiring inclusion of specified additional projects and removal of certain other projects for streamlined review. The committees also recommend the amendment of two rules to implement statutory provisions requiring that, for the new category of projects, the council, by rule of court, establish fees to be paid by project applicants to the courts for the additional costs of streamlined CEQA review.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes revising Civil Case Information Statement (form APP-004) to allow the appellant to provide a nonstatutory reason why the appeal is eligible for calendar preference and amending rule 8.100 to require the civil case information statement to be filed within 15 days after the Court of Appeal lodges the notice of appeal and assigns the appeal a case number. The Appellate Advisory Committee also proposes adopting a new mandatory form for requesting extensions of time to file a brief in misdemeanor appeals, revising all existing forms for requesting an extension of time to file briefs to make the forms mandatory, and revising the rules to reflect this new mandatory status. This proposal originated with a suggestion from the former Chief Justice’s Appellate Caseflow Workgroup and a committee member.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending California Rules of Court, rule 8.320 to authorize the Courts of Appeal to require, by local rule, that the clerk’s transcript in felony appeals include either (1) all contents of the superior court file or (2) additional items from the superior court file beyond those currently required in rule 8.320(b). This proposal is designed to help minimize delays in felony appeals occasioned by the need to cure omissions from, or make augmentations to, the clerk’s transcript. This proposal originated from a recommendation of the former Chief Justice’s Appellate Caseflow Workgroup.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending California Rules of Court, rule 8.200 to provide a deadline for filing an application to file an amicus brief when no respondent’s brief has been filed. The current rule requires that applications to file an amicus brief be filed within 14 days after the reply brief “is filed or could have been filed.” The rule, however, does not provide a deadline in cases where the respondent does not file a brief and, therefore, there is no reply brief. The proposed amendment would close this gap in the rules. This proposal originated with a suggestion from the Family Violence Appellate Project.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes the approval of three optional forms that parties in limited civil appeals can use to draft their appellate briefs and an information sheet that explains the use of these form briefs. Additionally, the committee proposes amending one rule of court and revising one form to address these new form briefs. The new form briefs are intended to assist self-represented litigants and attorneys unfamiliar with appellate practice in drafting effective briefs in limited civil appeals before the appellate division. The proposal originated with a suggestion from the California Lawyers Association.

The Appellate Advisory Committee and the Criminal Law Advisory Committee propose amending rules 4.551, 8.385, and 8.386 of the California Rules of Court and revising Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (form HC-001), Motion to Vacate Conviction or Sentence (form CR-187), and Order on Motion to Vacate Conviction or Sentence (form CR-188) to implement the Racial Justice Act, which prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a conviction or sentence based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes revising Notice of Appeal/Cross-Appeal (Unlimited Civil Case) (form APP-002) and Notice of Appeal/Cross-Appeal (Limited Civil Case) (form APP-102) to (1) include an item by which an attorney can join the appeal to challenge an order directing payment of sanctions by the attorney, (2) add an optional item by which the appellant can attach a copy of the judgment or order being appealed, and (3) on form APP-002 highlight the item requesting the date the order or judgment being appealed was entered so that it is not overlooked. This proposal originated in response to a recent California Supreme Court decision and suggestions by the Family Violence Appellate Project and committee members.

The Administrative Presiding Justices Advisory Committee is proposing a new rule to establish procedures for submitting to administrative presiding justices contentions that an administrative presiding justice or presiding justice has not properly addressed or managed an important matter related to the administration of a Court of Appeal or a division of a Court of Appeal. This proposal is based on a recommendation from the Appellate Caseflow Workgroup and would advance the efficient, effective, and just administration of the Courts of Appeal.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending the rules regarding appendixes to allow appellants to file an appendix before filing the opening brief and to allow respondents to elect an appendix when their other record designations are due. The changes are intended to assist courts and litigants by permitting earlier filing of an appendix, which could assist with briefing and courts’ consideration of petitions for writ of supersedeas, and to provide respondents the opportunity to elect an appendix after receiving notice that the appellant has designated a clerk’s transcript. The committee proposes revising several forms to reflect the rule changes and revoking two forms that would no longer be necessary. The proposal originated with suggestions from an appellate attorney in Berkeley and a bar association in San Diego.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes updating the rules regarding oral argument in the appellate division to reflect modern videoconferencing technology and facilitate remote appearances. The current rules narrowly provide for videoconferencing at different courts to accommodate appellate division judges who would have to travel to attend oral argument in the same location. Parties are required to appear in person at the court that issued the order or judgment being appealed unless a local rule or appellate division order permits otherwise. This proposal would replace the videoconferencing provisions with broader authorization for remote appearances. The proposal originated with a suggestion from a committee member.

To facilitate review on the merits and streamline procedures, the Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule governing petitions for review in the Supreme Court to provide for attachment of the entire trial court order when petitioner seeks review of a Court of Appeal summary denial of a writ petition. Under the current rule, attachments to petitions for review may not exceed 10 pages. The proposal originated with a suggestion from an advisory committee member.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes revising the forms used to request an extension of time to file a brief in the Court of Appeal and the appellate division of the superior court. The revisions would add space for the applicant to indicate the work done to date on the appeal and would correct the item on one form regarding who must be served with the application. On the civil forms, an item indicating that the case has calendar preference would be added. Finally, the item on the forms for the applicant to explain why an extension of time should be granted would be revised to require the applicant to address the relevant factors a court will use to determine whether good cause exists. The proposal originated with suggestions from the Chief Justice’s Appellate Caseflow Workgroup, an appellate project, a county bar association, and a member of the Judicial Council.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending several rules relating to the format of reporter’s transcripts and borrowing the record on appeal. Code of Civil Procedure section 271 requires that as of January 1, 2023, a reporter’s transcript must be delivered in electronic form unless a party or person entitled to the transcript requests it in paper format. In recognition that most reporter’s transcripts will be in electronic form, this proposal would allow the transcripts to be in a single volume in most cases and would allow a party lending the record to another party to ask the court reporter to provide a read-only electronic copy of the reporter’s transcript to the borrowing party rather than sending its copy of the reporter’s transcript to the borrowing party. In addition, the proposal would clarify that, when it is submitted by a party in lieu of depositing the estimated cost of the transcript with the court, a certified transcript must comply with specified format requirements. This proposal originated with suggestions from the California Court Reporters Association.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending the rules governing costs on appeal in civil actions to clarify that the general rule for awarding costs to the prevailing party is subject to exception for statutes requiring a different or additional finding, determination, or analysis. The proposal is responsive to a recent Supreme Court decision and the constitutional principle that rules of court may not be inconsistent with statute.

To better align the length of time reporters’ transcripts must be kept with the length of time they may be needed and to conform to a recent statutory change, the Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule regarding retention of Court of Appeal records. This proposal would extend the time the Court of Appeal must keep the original or an electronic copy of the reporter’s transcript in cases affirming a felony conviction from 20 years to 75 years. It would also amend the rule to reflect the statutory presumption that an original reporter’s transcript is in electronic form, not paper form. This proposal originated with suggestions from a clerk/executive officer of a Court of Appeal and an attorney at the Supreme Court.

In 2018 the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1391 (Lara; Stats. 2018, ch. 1012), which amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 to provide that a minor must be at least 16 years of age to be considered for transfer of jurisdiction to criminal court unless the individual for whom transfer is sought was 14 or 15 at the time of the offense, the offense is listed in section 707(b), and the individual was not apprehended until after the end of juvenile court jurisdiction. The Judicial Council took action to implement these age-related changes in the jurisdiction of the juvenile court in 2019, but revoked that action when a split of authority within the California Courts of Appeal arose as to whether these changes were enacted in a constitutional manner. That split was resolved by the California Supreme Court in 2021 in favor of the constitutionality of the legislation. Additionally, legislation was enacted in 2021 to provide an expedited review on the merits from an order granting a motion to transfer. The Appellate Advisory Committee and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee propose adopting a new rule of court, amending several other rules, and revising two forms pertaining to the transfer-of-jurisdiction process and juvenile appeals to reflect both legislative changes to the transfer statutes.

As mandated by the Legislature, the Judicial Council previously adopted rules and established procedures that implemented a statutory scheme for the expedited resolution of actions and proceedings brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenging certain projects that qualified for such streamlined procedures. This proposal will implement additional legislation requiring that the Judicial Council amend these rules to include additional projects for streamlined review. The proposal will also implement new and reenacted statutory provisions requiring that, in cases under two of the statutes, the council, by rule of court, establish fees to be paid by those project applicants to the trial court and Court of Appeal for the costs of streamlined CEQA review.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes updating language in several rules and a form to reflect guidelines for referring to persons with disabilities and terminology changes in California statutes. The proposal is based on a suggestion from a county bar association.

As mandated by the Legislature, the Judicial Council previously adopted rules and established procedures that implemented a statutory scheme for the expedited resolution of actions and proceedings brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenging certain projects that qualified for such streamlined procedures. This proposal will implement recent legislation requiring that the Judicial Council amend these rules to include additional projects for streamlined review. The proposal will also implement new statutory provisions requiring that, in cases under two of the statutes, the council, by rule of court, establish fees to be paid by those project applicants to the courts for the additional costs of streamlined CEQA review

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending two rules of court governing electronic filing in the appellate courts to permit the use of electronic signatures and make other updates. The trial court electronic filing rules have been amended several times recently, including to allow electronic signatures. Several similar amendments for the parallel appellate rules are now being proposed to foster modern e-business practices, promote consistency in the rules and efficiency among stipulating parties, and reduce unnecessary transmission of paper documents. The proposed amendments to rule 8.70 would add a definition for electronic signature and update several other definitions. The amendments to rule 8.75 would authorize the use of electronic signatures on electronic documents filed with the court and reorganize parts of the rule to improve clarity and eliminate redundancies. This proposal originated from the suggestion of an attorney in private practice.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule that governs initiating an appeal in a felony case after a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or after an admission of a probation violation. In these cases, a certificate of probable cause is required if the defendant seeks to appeal an issue that challenges the validity of the plea or admission. Currently, the rule requires the trial court clerk to mark a notice of appeal “Inoperative” if the defendant did not file the statement requesting a certificate of probable cause or the trial court denied a certificate. However, because an appeal can be based on grounds that do not require a certificate, the clerk must review the notice of appeal and decide whether it should be filed notwithstanding the lack of a certificate. The amendments would reorganize the rule, simplify procedures, and eliminate the onus on the clerk to make a legal decision. The proposal is based on a suggestion from a member of another advisory committee.

To conform to a recent statutory change and to better align the length of time reporters’ transcripts must be kept with the length of time they may be needed, the Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule regarding preservation and destruction of Court of Appeal records. Code of Civil Procedure section 271, subdivision (a), no longer requires that an original reporter’s transcript be in paper format. Thus, a provision in rule 10.1028 permitting the court to keep an electronic copy in lieu of an original paper reporter’s transcript should be revised. This proposal would also extend the time the court must keep the original or an electronic copy of the reporter’s transcript in felony appeals to 100 years. The rule’s current requirement to keep the reporter’s transcript for 20 years in any case affirming a criminal conviction does not account for longer sentences or changes in felony sentencing laws. This proposal originated with suggestions from a clerk/executive officer of a Court of Appeal and an attorney at the Supreme Court.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes adopting a new rule and amending four current rules to allow litigants in limited civil appeals to use an appendix in lieu of a clerk’s transcript as the record of documents filed in the trial court. The California Rules of Court contain a rule for use of an appendix in the Court of Appeal but do not include such a rule for civil appeals in the appellate division. The proposed rule is based on the existing rule and closely follows its structure and content. To assist litigants in using an appendix, the committee also proposes approving a new form and revising an information sheet and a form for designating the record in limited civil cases. This proposal originated with a suggestion from a judge of the superior court who serves on the appellate division and is a current committee member.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending rules and revising a form to clarify the appellate procedures for electronic service. The proposal would amend rules 8.25, 8.72, and 8.78 of the California Rules of Court and revise form APP-009-INFO. The purpose of the proposed amendments and revisions is to clarify the procedures for electronic service in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal. The proposal originated from the committee’s awareness of a change in the law regarding consent to electronic service.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule regarding confirmation of receipt and filing of electronically submitted documents to clarify the date and time of filing. Among other things, rule 8.77 of the California Rules of Court currently addresses the receipt date of submissions received after the close of business but is silent as to when a received document is deemed filed. The committee proposes amending rule 8.77 to state that an electronic document that complies with filing requirements is deemed filed on the date and time it was received by the court. This proposal is based on a suggestion from the California Lawyers Association, Committee on Appellate Courts, Litigation Section.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending three appellate rules of court for juvenile appeals and writs to update the language regarding the notice the clerk must give to the court reporter to prepare the reporter’s transcript. The requirement that the notice must be “by telephone and in writing” is not found in other appellate rules governing notice to court reporters and the change would provide clerks with more flexibility in how they provide notice. This proposal is based on a suggestion received from the director of juvenile operations at a superior court.

To assist the appellate courts in continuing to operate during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Judicial Council recently amended rule 8.66 of the California Rules of Court, the appellate rule governing extensions of time because of a public emergency, to provide for tolling in addition to extending time. The amendments also allow the Chair of the Judicial Council to order tolling or extensions of time for up to 30 days rather than 14 days, and clarify and simplify various provisions of the rule. The rule was amended prior to circulation because of the courts’ urgent need for these changes to take effect immediately. The chairs of the Judicial Council’s six internal committees are now circulating the rule and seeking comments following amendment of the rule. The internal committee chairs will recommend further amendments, based on the comments, if appropriate.

Summary: To implement recent Judicial Council–sponsored legislation amending the statute that governs access to records in a juvenile case, the Appellate Advisory Committee and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee propose amending the rules regarding confidentiality in juvenile court and appellate court proceedings. The statutory amendment provides that individuals who petitioned for, and by order of the juvenile court were granted access to, the juvenile case file are entitled to access those same records for purposes of appellate court proceedings in which they are parties. This proposal would revise a number of forms to add a new notice about access to records on review and make other clarifying changes. The committees also propose a new information sheet to assist those litigants who must file a petition to request access to records. Deadline to Submit comments: Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 5:00 pm.

Summary: To implement the California Supreme Court's decision in Gardner v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2019) 6 Cal.5th 998, the Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule regarding appointment of counsel in misdemeanor appeals to expand the circumstances under which the appellate division must appoint counsel for an indigent defendant. The proposal would also revise two forms to be consistent with the rule amendments. Deadline to Submit comments: Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 5:00 pm.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes a new rule of court describing the required contents of the normal record on appeal for civil commitment cases and a new notice of appeal form for civil commitment cases. This proposal is in response to a suggestion from a member of this committee and is intended to provide needed guidance to litigants and the courts and ensure that appellate records in civil commitment cases are complete.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes the adoption of a new rule of court governing the form of filed documents in the appellate division. The rule is intended to provide clarity to litigants, court staff, and judges as to the proper formatting of applications, motions, and other documents to be filed in the appellate division. This proposal is in response to a suggestion from a member of this committee.

To promote greater awareness of parents’ and legal guardians’ appellate rights in juvenile court proceedings, the Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule regarding advisement of appellate rights to remove the limitation that the court need only provide this information to parents and guardians who are present at the hearing that resulted in the judgment or order. The committee also proposes the adoption of a new optional form notice for clerks to send with court orders following a hearing to provide the advisement. This proposal originated with a suggestion from an attorney in San Diego. DEADLINE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Monday, June 10, 2019

To increase efficiency and provide guidance for litigants, the Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule regarding oral argument in limited civil and misdemeanor appeals to provide that oral argument will not be set in cases presenting no arguable issues and to set forth a procedure for waiving oral argument. The committee also proposes the adoption of two optional forms, one for limited civil cases and one for misdemeanor cases, to assist litigants in waiving oral argument if they choose to do so. This proposal originated with suggestions from a presiding judge of an appellate division and a member of the committee.

To establish limits on briefing that reflect the limited scope of petitions for rehearing, the Appellate Advisory Committee proposes reducing the maximum length of petitions and answers by amending the rule that governs the content and form of briefs in the Court of Appeal. Currently, the rule provides maximum limits of 14,000 words for briefs produced on a computer and 50 pages for briefs produced on a typewriter. These limits apply to all types of briefs, including petitions for rehearing and answers to those petitions. This proposal would provide lower limits of 7,000 words and 25 pages for petitions for rehearing and answers. This proposal arises out of suggestions from appellate practitioners, including a current committee member, that the committee consider reducing word limits for civil briefs in the Court of Appeal.

The Appellate Advisory Committee and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee propose amended rules and new and revised forms to implement recent Judicial Council–sponsored legislation amending the statute that specifies who may access and copy records in a juvenile case file in an appeal or writ proceeding challenging a juvenile court order. The statutory amendment clarified that people who are entitled to seek review of certain orders in juvenile proceedings or who are respondents or real parties in interest in such appellate proceedings may, for purposes of those appellate proceedings, access and copy those records to which they were previously given access by the juvenile court. This proposal would implement the legislation by updating the rules relating to juvenile appeals to include provisions relating to persons with limited access to the juvenile case file and the limited record that must be prepared and provided to these persons. The committees also propose a new information sheet and a notice on certain forms regarding the requirement to seek authorization from the juvenile court to access records in the case file before commencing an appeal.

To provide consistency and clarity, the Appellate Advisory Committee and the Information Technology Advisory Committee propose revising California Rules of Court, rules 8.40, 8.44, 8.71, 8.72, 8.74, 8.204, and 8.252 to create uniform formatting rules for electronic documents filed in the appellate courts. The rules currently provide some formatting requirements for electronic documents, but they do not include various local rule requirements such as bookmarking. Moreover, local rules around the state differ in their requirements and scope. By establishing uniform, comprehensive rules for all appellate courts, this proposal will ease the burden on filers caused by differing format rules. This project initially focused on rules for exhibits and bookmarking, but was expanded in scope to include other formatting requirements. It originated from a suggestion by a member of the Joint Appellate Technology Subcommittee of the Appellate Advisory Committee and the Information Technology Advisory Committee.

To update court procedures and provide clarity, the Appellate Advisory Committee and the Information Technology Advisory Committee propose amending the rule regarding petitions for review in the California Supreme Court to remove the requirement to send to the Court of Appeal a separate service copy of an electronically filed petition for review. Under current practice, when a petition for review is accepted for electronic filing by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal automatically receives a filed/endorsed copy of the petition through the electronic filing service provider (EFSP). Thus, in actual practice, the electronic filing of a petition satisfies the requirement to serve the Court of Appeal, and there is no need for a petitioner to serve the Court of Appeal with another copy as required by the rules. This proposal does not change the requirement to serve the Court of Appeal with a separate copy if a petition for review is filed in paper form. This proposal originated from a suggestion submitted by an appellate court administrator.

The Proposition 66 Rules Working Group is proposing amendments to an existing rule relating to appeals from decisions in habeas corpus proceedings and the adoption of several new rules and a form specifically addressing appeals from superior court decisions on death penalty–related habeas corpus petitions. These proposed rules and the form are intended to partially fulfill the Judicial Council’s rule-making obligations under Proposition 66 by establishing procedures for this new type of appeal.

The Proposition 66 Rules Working Group is proposing the adoption of six new rules of court relating to superior court procedures for death penalty–related habeas corpus proceedings. These proposed rules are intended to partially fulfill the Judicial Council’s rule-making obligations under Proposition 66 by establishing procedures for the superior courts’ new responsibility for this type of proceeding.

The Proposition 66 Rules Working Group is proposing amendments to the rule relating to the qualifications of counsel in death penalty appeals and habeas corpus proceedings, including moving to a new rule the provisions regarding the qualifications of counsel in death penalty– related habeas corpus proceedings. These proposed rule changes are intended to fulfill the Judicial Council’s obligation under Proposition 66 to reevaluate the competency standards for the appointment of counsel in death penalty direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings

The Proposition 66 Rules Working Group is proposing the adoption of two new rules and two new forms relating to the superior court appointment of counsel in death penalty–related habeas corpus proceedings. These proposed rules and forms are intended to partially fulfill the Judicial Council’s rule-making obligations under Proposition 66 by providing procedures for superior courts to determine if an attorney meets the minimum qualifications for counsel in death penalty–related habeas corpus proceedings and to appoint such counsel for indigent persons subject to a judgment of death.

The Proposition 66 Rules Working Group is proposing the adoption of several new rules and amendments to several existing rules relating to preparation of the record on appeal in death penalty cases. The working group is also proposing the adoption of two new mandatory forms and the approval of four new optional forms designed to assist in the record preparation process. These proposed rules and forms are intended to partially fulfill the Judicial Council’s rulemaking obligations under Proposition 66 by making the record preparation process in death penalty cases more efficient.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes amendments to several rules of court relating to the finality of appellate division decisions. The amendments are intended to ensure that parties have sufficient time after receiving notice of appellate division decisions to prepare and file applications for certification for transfer and petitions for rehearing before the time the appellate division loses jurisdiction. This proposal is in response to suggestions from the presiding judge of an appellate division and a member of this committee.

To facilitate use of the settled statement procedure in unlimited civil cases, the Appellate Advisory Committee and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee propose new forms and revisions to existing forms for litigants and courts to use in preparing and certifying settled statements. This proposal is based on comments received last year in response to the Appellate Advisory Committee’s invitation to comment on proposed changes to the settled statement rule and forms.

The Appellate Advisory Committee proposes revising several of the Judicial Council forms for filing notices of appeal and notices designating the record on appeal in appellate division matters. The revisions are intended to provide more complete and accurate information, make corrections, and clarify various items. This proposal is based on suggestions from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

As part of the Rules Modernization Project,1 the Appellate Advisory Committee recommends amending the rules to establish procedures for handling sealed and confidential materials submitted electronically in the Court of Appeal. The proposed amendments encompass the court’s return of lodged electronic records submitted in connection with a motion to seal.

.

The Center for Judicial Education and Research Advisory Committee proposes amending rule 10.469 of the California Rules of Court and adopting rule 10.465 to clarify existing fairness and access education requirements for judicial officers.

The Center for Judicial Education and Research Advisory Committee recommends amending rule 10.493 of the California Rules of Court to provide additional clarification to terms used in a slate of education rule amendments adopted by the Judicial Council that went into effect on January 1, 2023. This proposal is based on public comment received in 2022.

The Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions seeks public comment on proposed revisions
and additions to the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI). Under
California Rules of Court, rule 10.58, the advisory committee is responsible for regularly
reviewing case law and statutes affecting jury instructions and making recommendations to the
Judicial Council for updating, revising, and adding topics to the council’s civil jury instructions.
On approval by the Judicial Council, all changes will be published in the 2025 edition of the
official LexisNexis Matthew Bender CACI publication.

Title: Civil Jury Instructions: Revisions to Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions Summary: The Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions seeks public comment on proposed revisions to the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI). Under California Rules of Court, rule 10.58, the advisory committee is responsible for regularly reviewing case law and statutes affecting jury instructions and making recommendations to the Judicial Council for updating, revising, and adding topics to the council’s civil jury instructions. On approval by the Judicial Council, all changes will be published in the mid-year supplement to the 2024 edition of the official LexisNexis Matthew Bender CACI publication.

Civil Jury Instructions: Revisions to Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions Summary: The Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions seeks public comment on proposed additions and revisions to the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI). Under California Rules of Court, rule 10.58, the advisory committee is responsible for regularly reviewing case law and statutes affecting jury instructions and making recommendations to the Judicial Council for updating, revising, and adding topics to the council’s civil jury instructions. On approval by the Judicial Council, all changes will be published in the 2024 edition of the official LexisNexis Matthew Bender CACI publication.

Civil Jury Instructions: Civil Jury Instructions: Revisions to Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions Summary: The Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions seeks public comment on proposed additions and revisions to the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI). Under California Rules of Court, rule 10.58, the advisory committee is responsible for regularly reviewing case law and statutes affecting jury instructions and making recommendations to the Judicial Council for updating, revising, and adding topics to the council’s civil jury instructions. On approval by the Judicial Council, all changes will be published in the midyear supplement to the 2023 edition of the official LexisNexis Matthew Bender CACI publication.

Summary: The Rules Committee recommends revising California Rules of Court, rule 2.1050, to express the council’s continued interest in both free public access to the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) and the Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) and having publishers accurately publish the instructions, properly attribute the council as the source of the instructions, and not claim copyright in them. This proposal originated with a suggestion from a nonprofit organization following a change in copyright law that impacts government bodies. Deadline: Comments must be submitted by Friday, January 20, 2023 at, 5:00 PM (Pacific Time)

Civil Jury Instructions: Revisions to Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) Summary: The Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions seeks public comment on proposed additions and revisions to the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI). Under California Rules of Court, rule 10.58, the advisory committee is responsible for regularly reviewing case law and statutes affecting jury instructions and making recommendations to the Judicial Council for updating, revising, and adding topics to the council’s civil jury instructions. On approval by the Judicial Council, all changes will be published in the 2023 edition of the official LexisNexis Matthew Bender CACI publication.

The Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions seeks public comment on proposed additions and revisions to the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI). Under California Rules of Court, rule 10.58, the advisory committee is responsible for regularly reviewing case law and statutes affecting jury instructions and making recommendations to the Judicial Council for updating, revising, and adding topics to the council’s civil jury instructions. On approval by the Judicial Council, all changes will be published in the May 2022 supplement to the 2022 edition of the official LexisNexis Matthew Bender CACI publication.

Civil Jury Instructions: Revisions to Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) Summary: The Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions seeks public comment on proposed additions and revisions to the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI). Under California Rules of Court, rule 10.58, the advisory committee is responsible for regularly reviewing case law and statutes affecting jury instructions and making recommendations to the Judicial Council for updating, revising, and adding topics to the council’s civil jury instructions. On approval by the Judicial Council, all changes will be published in the 2022 edition of the official LexisNexis Matthew Bender CACI publication.

Civil Jury Instructions: Revisions to Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) Summary: The Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions seeks public comment on proposed additions, revisions, and four revocations to the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI). Under rule 10.58 of the California Rules of Court, the advisory committee is responsible for regularly reviewing case law and statutes affecting jury instructions and making recommendations to the Judicial Council for updating, revising, and adding topics to the council’s civil jury instructions. On approval by the Judicial Council, all changes will be published in the midyear supplement to the 2021 edition of the official LexisNexis Matthew Bender CACI publication.

Civil Jury Instructions: Revisions to Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) Summary: The Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions has posted proposed additions and revisions to the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI). Under rule 10.58 of the California Rules of Court, the advisory committee is responsible for regularly reviewing case law and statutes affecting jury instructions and making recommendations to the Judicial Council for updating, revising, and adding topics to the council’s civil jury instructions. On approval by the Judicial Council, all changes will be published in the 2021 edition of the official LexisNexis Matthew Bender CACI publication.

Civil Jury Instructions: Revisions to Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) Summary: The Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions has posted proposed additions and revisions to the Judicial Council civil jury instructions (CACI). Under rule 10.58 of the California Rules of Court, the advisory committee is responsible for regularly reviewing case law and statutes affecting jury instructions and making recommendations to the Judicial Council for updating, revising, and adding topics to the council’s civil jury instructions. On approval by the Judicial Council, all changes will be published in the 2020 midyear supplement of the official LexisNexis Matthew Bender CACI publication.

The advisory committee prefers receiving comments in a Word file attached to an e-mail addressed to civiljuryinstructions@jud.ca.gov. You may also submit your comments via the electronic form link above. You may also use this form, attached to an e-mail addressed to civiljuryinstructions@jud.ca.gov.

The advisory committee prefers receiving comments in a Word file attached to an e-mail addressed to civiljuryinstructions@jud.ca.gov. You may also submit your comments via the electronic form link above. You may also use this form, attached to an e-mail addressed to civiljuryinstructions@jud.ca.gov.

The advisory committee prefers receiving comments in a Word file attached to an e-mail addressed to civiljuryinstructions@jud.ca.gov. You may also submit your comments via the electronic form link above. You may also use this form, attached to an e-mail addressed to civiljuryinstructions@jud.ca.gov.

The advisory committee prefers receiving comments in a Word file attached to an e-mail addressed to civiljuryinstructions@jud.ca.gov. You may also submit your comments via the electronic form link above. You may also use this form, attached to an e-mail addressed to civiljuryinstructions@jud.ca.gov.

The advisory committee prefers receiving comments in a Word file attached to an e-mail addressed to civiljuryinstructions@jud.ca.gov. You may also submit your comments via the electronic form link above. You may also use this form, attached to an e-mail addressed to civiljuryinstructions@jud.ca.gov.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes amending California Rules of Court, rule 3.545 and adopting rule 3.546 to modify the procedures courts must follow when terminating coordinated actions and to specify procedures for terminating coordination proceedings. This proposal aims to address procedural concerns first raised by a superior court judge who has managed numerous coordination proceedings.

The Appellate Advisory Committee and the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee recommend amending California Rules of Court for the expedited resolution of actions and proceedings brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As mandated by the Legislature, the Judicial Council previously adopted rules and established procedures to implement a statutory scheme for the expedited resolution of actions and proceedings brought under CEQA challenging certain projects that qualified for such streamlined procedures. This proposal amends several rules to implement recent legislation requiring inclusion of specified additional projects and removal of certain other projects for streamlined review. The committees also recommend the amendment of two rules to implement statutory provisions requiring that, for the new category of projects, the council, by rule of court, establish fees to be paid by project applicants to the courts for the additional costs of streamlined CEQA review.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes adopting one rule and six mandatory forms and revising one form to implement Assembly Bill 1119 (Stats. 2023, ch. 562), enacted October 8, 2023. AB 1119 creates special procedures for debtor’s examinations for judgments concerning consumer debts awarded on or after January 1, 2025, and requires the Judicial Council to adopt new forms to implement these procedures.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes revisions to form CIV-165, Order on Unlawful Use of Personal Identifying Information, effective January 1, 2025, to include information about the business entity at issue in the petition underlying an order. The proposed revisions respond to a request from the Secretary of State’s office for more information to allow it to act on a court’s determination that a petitioner’s personal identifying information was used unlawfully. The revisions are intended to assist the Secretary of State in (1) redacting the victim’s name and personal identifying information from the business entity filing or label the data to show that it is impersonated and (2) removing the data from publicly accessible electronic indexes and databases.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes revising the optional form for claiming prejudgment costs under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 and 1033.5 (form MC-010), effective January 1, 2025, to add a certification under penalty of perjury for the costs submitted. The committee also proposes (1) removing item 15 from both form MC-010 and form MC-011 (the companion worksheet) because fees for hosting electronic documents have sunsetted as an expressly allowable cost under section 1033.5 and (2) relocating “Models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits” on both forms to follow more closely the sequence of costs in section 1033.5. The changes are recommended based on a litigant’s challenge to form MC-010’s verification language, a sunset provision in the statute, and a suggestion from a paralegal.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee recommends amending California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 to remove the outdated requirement that courts make tentative rulings available by telephone.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes amending California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385 and revising form CIV-110 to implement amended Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, which allows courts to dismiss cases without prejudice and retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement terms.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes amending rule 3.2226 of the California Rules of Court to implement the provisions of Senate Bill 149 concerning initial case management conferences for actions brought under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Summary: The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee recommend adoption of two new forms, Request for Sheriff to Serve Court Papers (form SER-001) and an attachment to that form, Special Instructions to Serve Court Papers (form SER-001A). The proposed forms comply with the statutory mandate in Assembly Bill 2791 that the Judicial Council adopt a form or forms for civil litigants to request that a sheriff’s office service their court papers. Deadline: Comments must be submitted by Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at, 5:00 PM (Pacific Time)

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee is proposing a new rule and a new form for optional use in unlawful detainer cases to promote settlement opportunities through the use of alternative dispute resolution processes. The new rule and form were previously circulated for comment between December 2022 and January 2023. The new rule states a policy favoring at least one opportunity for parties in all eviction cases to participate in some form of pretrial alternative dispute resolution process and would allow a court to shorten the existing deadline for submitting a mandatory settlement conference statement. The proposed new form would allow parties to submit any settlement agreement they reached to the court and ask for either an order without judgment or a stipulated judgment.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes the revision of nine Judicial Council forms, and revocation of one form, to implement statutory changes in Senate Bill 1200 (Stats. 2022, ch. 883), enacted September 30, 2022. SB 1200 limits the ability of a judgment creditor to renew or bring an action on a money judgment and lowers the applicable rate of post judgment interest where the judgment and unsatisfied principal amount of the judgment meet certain criteria. The proposed revisions address these statutory changes.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes the adoption of one new form and revision of several other forms relating to unlawful detainer actions. These new and revised forms (1) implement a new law creating a new procedure for partial evictions, (2) implement a new law providing additional time for certain defendants to respond to a summons for unlawful detainer, and (3) update the forms to reflect current law regarding COVID-19 rental protections.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee, the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee, and the Probate and Mental Health Advisory Committee propose adopting one form, revising two forms, revising and renumbering one form, and revoking one form to reflect a change in the law and to clarify and modernize the existing forms. The forms in the proposal are used to apply for and order the appointment of a guardian ad litem in a civil action or proceeding, including a family law proceeding, and in a proceeding under the Probate Code.

Together, the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee recommend revising form CLETS-001 to make needed updates and adopting new forms to be used when a request to renew has been filed in a protective order proceeding and the court or a party wishes to continue a hearing.

Together, the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee recommend adoption of a new form, Request for Sheriff to Serve Court Papers (form SER-001). The proposed new form complies with the statutory mandate in Assembly Bill 2791 (Stats. 2022, ch. 417) that the Judicial Council adopt a form for civil litigants to request that a sheriff’s office serve their court papers.

The Civil and Small Claim Advisory Committee recommends the adoption and revision of numerous gun violence restraining order forms. These new and revised forms (1) implement a new law permitting additional categories of individuals to petition for gun violence restraining orders, (2) bring the language describing firearm parts on gun violence restraining order forms in line with other protective order forms, (3) include new forms that can be used to request continuance of a hearing to renew a gun violence protective order, and (4) clarify that no additional proof of service is required if the respondent attends the hearing where the order was issued remotely.

Together, the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee recommend approving two rules of court and revising notice and order forms to clarify the service requirements for respondents who appear remotely in protective order proceedings.

Summary: The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee is proposing a new rule and a new form for optional use in unlawful detainer cases to promote settlement opportunities through the use of alternative dispute resolution processes. The new rule states a policy favoring at least one opportunity for participation in some form of pretrial dispute resolution, and would allow a court to shorten the existing deadline for submitting a mandatory settlement conference statement. The proposed new form would allow parties to submit any settlement agreement they reached to the court and ask for either an order without judgment or a stipulated judgment. Deadline: Comments must be submitted by Friday, January 20, 2023 at, 5:00 PM (Pacific Time).

Summary: The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee is proposing revisions to nine Judicial Council elder or dependent adult restraining orders forms. Most of the forms in this proposal were circulated for comment between April and May 2022 to implement the statutory changes in Assembly Bill 1243 (Stats. 2021, ch. 273) and to make other updates. After the comment period closed, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1621 (Stats. 2022, ch. 76), which took effect immediately on June 30, 2022. The new legislation prohibits persons restrained under elder or dependent adult restraining orders from possessing firearm parts (in addition to the already prohibited firearms). This proposal recommends additional revisions to seven previously circulated forms and recommends revisions to two forms that were not previously circulated to reflect the new law. Deadline: Comments must be submitted by Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at, 5:00 PM (Pacific Time)

Summary: Summary: The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee is proposing revisions to 30 Judicial Council civil restraining orders forms. Many of the forms in this proposal were circulated for comment between April and May 2022 to update the information on the forms related to interpreters, disability and court accommodations, and the priority of enforcement among protective orders. After the comment period closed, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1621 (Stats. 2022, ch. 76), which took effect immediately on June 30, 2022. The new legislation prohibits persons restrained under these restraining orders from possessing firearm parts (in addition to the already prohibited firearms). This proposal recommends additional revisions to 12 previously circulated forms and recommends revisions to 18 forms that were not previously circulated to reflect the new law. Deadline: Comments must be submitted by Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at, 5:00 PM (Pacific Time)

Summary: The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee is proposing revisions and additions to Judicial Council forms and the revocation of one form used to request recognition of a change of gender and change of name. Proposed forms implementing statutory changes in Assembly Bill 218 (Stats. 2021, ch. 577) were circulated for comment between April and May 2022. Among other things, AB 218 made significant changes to requirements for petitions for recognition of gender change for minors (removing the requirement for consent by, or notice to, a minor’s parents) and added a new category of petitioners who may make such petitions on behalf of minors, placing certain requirements on them. Shortly after comment on the proposed forms closed, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 421 (Stats. 2022, ch. 40), urgency legislation that modifies AB 218’s provisions in significant ways. Because AB 421’s amendments immediately went into effect upon signing by the Governor, they need to be incorporated in the proposed forms before the forms go into effect in January 2023. The proposed forms for minors’ petitions have all been further revised to reflect these statutory changes, and have been reorganized to make them clearer. Deadline: Comments must be submitted by Monday, September 19, 2022 at, 5:00 PM (Pacific Time)

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee recommends the adoption, approval, and revision of 18 forms to implement statutory changes in Assembly Bill 1243 (Stats. 2021, ch. 273) and to make other necessary changes to accurately reflect current law. AB 1243 make two substantial changes to the laws governing protective orders for elder or dependent adults. First, it creates a new cause of action whereby an order can be issued allowing contact between an elder or dependent adult and an individual who meets certain statutory requirements. Second, the bill allows courts to issue findings related to specific debts incurred as the result of financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult. The proposal incorporates these new provisions into the council’s elder abuse forms and makes other minor updates to those forms.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee jointly propose revising six forms to comply with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and reflect the act’s current title and legal citation. The proposed revisions are intended to address concerns by judicial officers that the act requires, but the forms do not include, a declaration as to how the petitioner/plaintiff ascertained the respondent’s/defendant’s nonmilitary status before requesting entry of judgment by way of default in the legal proceeding. The joint proposal would ensure that any changes to civil and family law forms are consistent to the extent appropriate.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee is proposing revisions and additions to the Judicial Council forms that individuals use to request name changes and orders recognizing a change of gender, to implement new laws going into effect January 1, 2023. Assembly Bill 218 (Stats. 2021, ch. 577) authorizes that petitions for recognition of a change of gender (and now sex identifier as well) and issuance of a new birth certificate may now be joined with requests to have other administrative records issued anew to reflect the person’s changed gender and sex identifier. In addition, the bill authorizes non-California residents to request name changes if they want to change their name on certain administrative records issued in California. Finally, AB 218 has also made significant changes to requirements for petitions for recognition of gender change for minors and has added a new category of petitioners who may make such petitions on behalf of minors. All the statutory changes will be reflected in the proposed forms, along with other minor non-substantive changes to make the forms clearer.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee is proposing revisions and additions to the Judicial Council forms that participants in the Secretary of State’s address confidentiality program (Safe at Home) may use to request a confidential name change or to request that their petition for name change be filed under seal. These changes are recommended based on a request that courts ensure that confidential name changes are on file with the Secretary of State’s office before a decree is issued by the court.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes revising form SUM-130, Summons—Unlawful Detainer—Eviction, to expand use of the mandatory form to expressly include forcible entry and forcible detainer proceedings. The revisions are intended to address confusion by courts and litigants as to whether form SUM-130 may be used in these types of proceedings.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee recommends revising several Judicial Council civil protective order forms to update the information they contain relating to interpreters, disability accommodations, and priority of enforcement.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee recommends the revision of 18 of the council’s Gun Violence forms to implement statutory changes in Assembly Bill 1057 (Stats. 2021, ch. 682) and Senate Bill 538 (Stats. 2021, ch. 686) and to make other necessary changes to accurately reflect current law. Assembly Bill 1057 amends the definition of “firearms” for the purpose of gun violence restraining orders to include certain firearm parts. Senate Bill 538 permits parties and witnesses to attend hearings on gun violence restraining orders remotely. The proposal incorporates these new provisions into the council’s forms and makes other minor changes to gun violence protective order forms.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee recommends amending rule 3.1160 of the California Rules of Court, the adoption, approval, and revision of seven forms, and the revocation of one form to implement statutory changes in Assembly Bill 1143 (Stats. 2021, ch. 27). The statutory amendment permits courts to allow an alternative method of service for civil harassment restraining order petitions, temporary restraining orders, and notices of hearing upon a showing that the petitioner has been unable to accomplish personal service after a diligent effort, and that there is reason to believe the respondent is evading service or cannot be located. The proposal incorporates this potential alternative service and the required showing into the council’s forms and the rules of court, and makes other minor changes to civil harassment forms.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee recommends revising Application and Order for Appearance and Examination (form AT-138/EJ-125) to implement statutory changes in Assembly Bill 1580 (Stats. 2021, ch. 30). The statutory amendment requires additional information for organizations on orders to appear for examination. The proposal incorporates the new required statements on the council’s existing form.

As mandated by the Legislature, the Judicial Council previously adopted rules and established procedures that implemented a statutory scheme for the expedited resolution of actions and proceedings brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenging certain projects that qualified for such streamlined procedures. This proposal will implement recent legislation requiring that the Judicial Council amend these rules to include additional projects for streamlined review. The proposal will also implement new statutory provisions requiring that, in cases under two of the statutes, the council, by rule of court, establish fees to be paid by those project applicants to the courts for the additional costs of streamlined CEQA review

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes the adoption, approval, and revision of 13 forms to implement statutory changes in Senate Bill 91 (Stats. 2021, ch. 2), enacted January 29, 2021, and Assembly Bill 832 (Stats. 2021, ch. 27), enacted June 28, 2021. Assembly Bill 832 establishes new procedures for bringing unlawful detainer actions based on nonpayment of rent, and for judgments in such cases, effective October 1, 2021. Provisions in SB 91, as amended by AB 832, allow parties, effective November 1, 2021, to litigate claims for nonpayment of COVID-19 rental debt in small claims court regardless of the amount demanded, and mandates new pleading requirements for such actions whether filed in small claims court or in general civil court. In addition, AB 832 requires the council to develop forms for parties to use in actions to recover COVID-19 rental debt. The proposed forms address these statutory changes. The council must consider these forms at its October 1, 2021, meeting in order for them to be in effect by October 1, and November 1, 2021, the respective effective dates of the new procedures. To ensure that stakeholders, courts, and the public generally have an opportunity to comment on the forms, they are being posted for public comment even though the normal comment period cannot be provided.. Additional revisions to the JBCM are proposed below in tracked changes format, and staff invites public comment regarding the proposed revisions. Review and submit comments by 5:00 p.m., Friday, August 20, 2021 (Pacific)

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee recommends amending rule 3.1010 of the California Rules of Court governing remote depositions. The proposed amendments reflect recent statutory changes enacted in Senate Bill 1146 (Stats. 2020, ch. 112, § 3) that (1) removed the requirement that deponents appear in the physical presence of the deposition officer, and (2) eliminated the different treatment for party and nonparty deponents. The revised law also permits any party to be physically present with the deponent during the deposition. Accordingly, the proposed amendment adds a notice requirement for any party wishing to do so.

Senate Bill 91 (Stats. 2021, ch. 2), urgency legislation that became effective when signed on Friday, January 29, 2021, extended the tenant protections provided under the Tenant, Homeowner, and Small Landlord Relief and Stabilization Act of 2020 (Assem. Bill 3088; Stats. 2020, ch. 37), added some additional protections, and established a rental assistance program. In light of these statutory changes, two unlawful detainer forms (a mandatory form with supplemental allegations and the answer form) were no longer in compliance with California law and could have been misleading to the parties and the courts. In addition, a new form is required to allow parties to comply with the new statutory requirement for verifications by a landlord before a court may issue a judgment in an unlawful detainer case based on nonpayment of rent. Because the new law went into effect immediately upon signing by the Governor, forms UD-101 and UD-105 were approved and new form UD-120 adopted prior to circulation for comment so that they would be available for parties to use as soon as possible after the effective date of the new laws. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee is now circulating the new and revised forms and seeking comments following their approval. The committee will recommend further revisions to the council based on the comments, if appropriate.

Although Assembly Bill 3088 protects residential tenants who meet certain requirement from being evicted for nonpayment of rent due between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, it does not relieve those tenants from liability for that debt. The tenants still owe the rent due, and landlords can sue to recover it. In order to provide expeditious and inexpensive resolution of actions for payment of COVID-19 rental debt, AB 3088 provides the option of litigating such disputes in small claims court, even when the amount claimed is over the jurisdictional limits that otherwise pertain to that court. This new option to go to small claims court may be exercised beginning March 1, 2021 and will remain in effect until February 1, 2025. The Civil and Small Claim Advisory Committee recommends revisions to Plaintiff's Claim and ORDER to Go to Small Claims Court (form SC-100) to reflect the exception to the jurisdictional limits for such cases, and approval of a new information sheet related to them, COVID-19 Rental Debt in Small Claims Court (form SC-110-INFO). Comments must be submitted by December 23, 2020 5:00 PM (Pacific)

The enactment of the Tenant, Homeowner, and Small Landlord Relief and Stabilization Act of 2020 (Assem. Bill 3088; Stats. 2020, ch. 37) changes the practice and procedures relating to all residential unlawful detainer actions from now until January 31, 2021, and for a longer period for actions based on unpaid rent or other charges due at any time between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. The Judicial Council recently approved new and revised forms to assist courts in determining how to properly proceed with actions under the new law, and to assist parties in understanding their rights and responsibilities. The revised Answer—Unlawful Detainer (form UD-105) was approved prior to circulation for comment so that it would be available for defendants on October 5, 2020, the date when courts were authorized to proceed under the new law with actions based on failure to pay rent or other charges. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee is now circulating the revised form and seeking comments following its approval. The committee will recommend further revisions to the council based on the comments, if appropriate.

The enactment of the Tenant, Homeowner, and Small Landlord Relief and Stabilization Act of2020 (Assem. Bill 3088; Stats. 2020, ch. 37) changes the practice and procedures relating to all residential unlawful detainer actions from now until January 31, 2021, and for a longer period for actions based on unpaid rent due at any time between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes three new forms to assist courts and parties in complying with this new law.

The California Supreme Court recently held that courts that do not provide official court reporters must upon request make court reporters or other means to create a verbatim record available to parties entitled to a waiver of fees. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594.) The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes a new court reporter request form, a revised fee waiver information form, and amendments to California Rules of Court, rule 2.956, to help fee waiver recipients avail themselves of rights recognized in Jameson. The proposal would also revise that rule to reflect recent changes to Government Code section 68086.

Assembly Bill 800 provides that a party who is participating in the Safe at Home program (an address confidentiality program run by the Secretary of State) may appear pseudonymously in a civil action, and that the true name of the party and any other identifying characteristics are to be kept confidential by the court and other parties in the case. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes new forms to be used by pseudonymous parties to (1) move the court to seal previously filed documents that disclose that party’s name or other identifying characteristics; (2) apply to the court ex parte to hear such a motion on shortened time; and (3) provide comprehensive instructions to self-represented litigants as to how to complete, file, and serve these forms.

This proposal from the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee would provide for a pilot project to apply new discovery provisions for unlimited civil cases. The pilot project would be optional for courts and voluntary for parties appearing in participating courts. The proposal is based on the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System to streamline the discovery process in order to lessen the cost of litigation and therefore provide greater access to justice for civil litigants.

The Probate and Mental Health Advisory Committee recommends amending six rules of court and revising eight forms used in proceedings to approve the compromise of a claim or action or the disposition of proceeds of a judgment for a minor or person with a disability. The proposed amendments and revisions are needed (1) to clarify that the petitioner must completely disclose the effect of the compromise on the statutory and contractual lien rights of all parties, insurers, and medical service providers; (2) to clarify that a blocked account for the deposit of the proceeds of the compromise or judgment must be opened in the name of the petitioner in the petitioner’s capacity as representative of the minor or person with a disability; (3) to clarify that an adult claimant who has the capacity to consent to orders approving a compromise or disposition and does not have a conservator of the estate must give express consent to those orders; and (4) to make technical and clarifying revisions to the forms’ titles, language, and format. These revisions are needed to improve access to the courts, protect the interests of minors and persons with disabilities, and allow prompt and secure distribution of the proceeds of settlements and judgments in favor of minors and persons with disabilities.

To protect parties who have a civil cause of action that accrued before or during the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Judicial Council adopted California Rules of Court, emergency rule 9, which tolled statutes of limitations on civil causes of action for the duration of the state of emergency and 90 days thereafter. The chairs of the Judicial Council’s six internal committees now propose that the council amend emergency rule 9 to shorten the time for tolling statutes of limitations for all civil causes of action and to clarify that the tolling applies also to statutes of repose.

Summary: Recently enacted Senate Bill 616 amends several laws regarding exemptions to enforcement of civil money judgments. The amendments have two primary purposes: to extend the time for making and opposing claims of exemption, and to create a new automatic exemption for deposit accounts. A new automatic exemption for Federal Emergency Management Agency funds provided to a judgment debtor was also created. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes that the Judicial Council revise several enforcement of judgment forms and approve several new ones to implement the new provisions. Deadline to Submit comments: Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 5:00 pm.

Summary: Assembly Bill 800 provides that a party who is participating in the Safe at Home program (an address confidentiality program run by the Secretary of State) may appear pseudonymously in a civil action, and that the true name of the party as well as any other identifying characteristics are to be kept confidential by the court and other parties in the case. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes a new form to be used by pseudonymous parties to provide their true names to the courts and the other parties to the action, and for all parties to the action to use to provide any other identifying characteristics that have been redacted from pleadings or other papers filed with the court. Deadline to Submit comments: Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 5:00 pm.

Summary: The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes revising the Judicial Council unlawful detainer complaint and answer forms to reflect the changes in landlord-tenant law enacted in Assembly Bill 1482, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. Deadline to Submit comments: Tuesday, February 11, 2020, at 5:00 pm.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes a new form for Judicial Council approval, Mediation Disclosure Notification and Acknowledgment (form ADR-200). This optional form serves to facilitate parties in implementing the requirements of Senate Bill 954 (Stats. 2018, ch. 350), which requires attorneys to provide their clients with specific written mediation confidentiality disclosures when they are representing clients in connection with mediation.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee recommends that California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, be amended, effective January 1, 2020, to reflect the change in law regarding separate statements in discovery motions enacted in Assembly Bill 2230 (Stats. 2018, ch. 317). That bill amends three sections of the Code of Civil Procedure to expressly provide that courts, for certain types of discovery, may allow the moving party to submit an outline of the discovery requests and responses in dispute rather than the separate statement currently required by rule. The rule reflects those changes and expands them to additional types of discovery.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee is proposing revisions to two small claims forms in light of the repeal of Code of Civil Procedure section 116.550 in Senate Bill 1155 (Hueso; Stats. 2018). Previously, that statute had authorized a small claims court to permit another individual, other than an attorney, to assist a party if the court determines that the party does not speak or understand English sufficiently to comprehend the proceedings or give testimony and needs assistance. The law had also required each court to make a reasonable effort to maintain and make available to the parties a list of interpreters who were able and willing to aid parties in small claims actions. SB 1155 repealed section 116.550, and at the same time made all the statutory provisions regarding interpreters in other civil cases applicable to small claims cases. The proposed form revisions would remove all references to the content of this repealed law from the forms and more closely reflect current law.

In 2013, the Judicial Council amended the statewide rules of court on civil case management to give courts the discretion to exempt certain types or categories of general civil cases from the mandatory case management rules. The amendments were intended as an emergency measure, to help courts to better address the state’s fiscal crisis by decreasing the time spent by court staff and judicial officers in filing case management statements, setting and holding individual case management conferences, and performing other actions required by the case management rules. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee, following the recommendation by the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System, is proposing that the discretionary exemption be made permanent, to allow flexibility in case management where courts so desire.

Recent changes in the law pertaining to court fees for providing court reporters, providing court interpreters to parties in civil cases by priority level, and reimbursing courts for the cost of providing interpreters affect certain rules and forms that address fee waivers. The California Supreme Court recently held that courts that do not provide official court reporters must make available to parties entitled to a waiver of fees court reporters or other means to create a verbatim record. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594.) Earlier legislation (Assem. Bill 1657; Stats. 2014, ch. 721) added a section to the Evidence Code that requires the Judicial Council to reimburse courts for court interpreter services for parties in civil cases and prioritizes by case type the provision of court interpreter services. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes that two California Rules of Court be amended and several fee waiver forms be revised to provide, generally, that a party that has been granted a fee waiver may request a court to provide an official reporter at a proceeding; delete an item addressing court-appointed interpreters in small claims actions; and change the language addressing court reporter’s fees.

Legislation effective January 1, 2019, authorizes a person who believes that his or her personal identifying information has been used unlawfully in a business entity filing to petition a court for a determination of unlawful use and issuance of an order certifying that determination and ordering specified actions. Senate Bill 1196 (Jackson; Stats. 2018, ch. 696) requires the Judicial Council to develop a form for issuing the order. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes that new Order on Unlawful Use of Personal Identifying Information (form CIV-165) be used for that purpose.

Recent legislation added to and amended the Code of Civil Procedure section regarding unlawful detainer actions to expand affirmative defenses and to clarify that the period of time in which a defendant must respond to a summons does not include Saturday, Sunday, and other judicial holidays. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes revising two forms, Answer—Unlawful Detainer (form UD-105) and Summons Unlawful Detainer—Eviction (form SUM-130), to make them consistent with these statutory changes.

At the November 30, 2018 meeting, the Judicial Council, at the recommendation of the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee, approved revising 22 gun violence restraining order (GVRO) forms to reflect recently enacted legislative amendments that go into effect January 1, 2019. Recently enacted Senate Bill 1200 (Stats. 2018, ch. 898) requires orders under Penal Code section 18100 et seq. to be referred to as gun violence restraining orders, expands the definition of ammunition to include a magazine, prohibits a filing fee for GVRO forms and documents, requires a law enforcement officer to make a specific request when serving a gun violence restraining order, and provides that parties do not need to pay the sheriff for service of a GVRO. The short time frame between the bill passage and implementation date necessitated that the forms be revised without time for public comment before they went into effect. The forms are now being circulated for comment, and the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee will recommend any appropriate revisions based on comments received.

The Judicial Council has recently adopted and revised several Name Change forms at the recommendation of the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee to reflect recently enacted legislative amendments that go into effect January 1, 2019. Assembly Bill 3250 (Stats. 2018,ch. 776) added new requirements for issuance and service of orders to show cause in certain name change and gender-change recognition proceedings initiated by parents or guardians, as well as requiring new judicial findings in gender-change recognition proceedings brought by guardians. Assembly Bill 2201 (Stats. 2018, ch. 818) added a new category of petitioners (those seeking to avoid human trafficking) to those who may seek confidential name changes. The forms have been revised, and the two additional forms adopted, prior to circulation so that they will be correct when the laws become effective. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee is now circulating these forms and seeking comments following adoption of the forms. The committee will recommend further revisions, based on the comments, if appropriate.

The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee is proposing five new gun violence restraining order (GVRO) forms and two revised GVRO forms to facilitate courts and parties in complying with the new hearing requirement in Penal Code section 18148. The proposal also revises the current GVRO forms relating to a restrained party providing proof of the surrender or sale of firearms, ammunition, and ammunition to more clearly reflect the statutory provisions

Recent legislation requires the Judicial Council to adopt, no later than January 1, 2019, a written advisory notice to be used by a plaintiff’s attorney with each demand letter or complaint alleging gender discrimination in pricing. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes adopting a new form to comply with the legislation. Assembly Bill 1615 (Stats. 2017, ch. 156) added the Small Business Gender Discrimination in Services Compliance Act to division 1 of the Civil Code. It defines a “gender discrimination in pricing services claim” as a civil claim based on an alleged price difference in similar services charged to a person because of the person’s gender. Among its provisions is Civil Code section 55.62, which requires the Judicial Council to adopt a written advisory notice to be used by a plaintiff’s attorney to comply with that statute’s provisions, including the requirement that a notice accompany each demand letter or complaint. The text of the notice is set out in Civil Code section 55.62(c).

Recent legislation added to and amended the Code of Civil Procedure to require a meet-and confer session before a party can file a motion to strike a pleading or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and to provide for an automatic extension of time if the parties are unable to meet and confer within the time allowed. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes revising two optional forms, one to implement the meet-and-confer requirements and the other to be used to obtain an automatic 30-day extension of time to file a motion to strike a pleading or a motion for judgment on the pleadings when the parties were unable to meet before the due date of the motion.

Recent legislation amended statutes relating to criminal gang databases and the process that authorizes challenges to a law enforcement agency’s inclusion of a person in a shared gang database. The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule of court and revising the Judicial Council form that address a petition for a superior court to review a law enforcement agency’s denial of a request for removal from a shared gang database to reflect this legislation.

The committee proposes revising Confidential Information Form Under Civil Code Section 1708.85 (form MC-125) to reflect recent amendments to California Civil Code section 1708.85. The amendments provide that the Judicial Council adopt or revise rules or forms to reflect the new law as appropriate by January 1, 2019.

This proposal from the Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee would increase the jurisdictional amount of limited civil cases from $25,000 to $50,000 and would include unlawful detainer within that jurisdictional amount in all procedures applicable to limited civil cases, including mandatory expedited jury trials (EJTs). The proposal is based on the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of California’s Court System (Futures Commission).

Senate Bill 179, recently signed into law by Governor Brown, includes several new and amended provisions that require revisions to the Judicial Council’s Name Change form series. The new law changes the process for seeking name changes to conform to gender (new Code Civ. Proc., §1277.5); changes the process for adults seeking recognition of a gender change, including by adding “nonbinary” as one of the genders that can be recognized (amended Health & Saf. Code, §§ 103425 and 103430(a)–(b)); and adds a new process for minors seeking recognition of gender changes (new Health & Saf. Code, § 103430(e)). In addition, Senate Bill 310 eliminates the prohibition on name changes for persons under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (those in state prison or on parole) and those in county jail, while at the same time adding a service requirement for such petitions. The relevant portions of both new laws will go into effect September 1, 2018. This proposal is to amend, revise, or revoke various Judicial Council forms effective that same date to reflect the statutory changes.

Assembly Bill 688 (Calderon; Stats. 2017, ch. 529) amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 4880 to provide an exemption from enforcement of judgments for funds in special savings accounts for persons with disabilities. The amount exempted is $100,000. To assist court users and to help implement this legislation, the exemption must be added to Judicial Council forms that list exemptions to enforcement of judgments.

The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics seeks public comment on whether to add new commentary to canon 2B addressing two different issues. First, proposed commentary would state that a judge who “likes,” rates, or comments on a product, service, or business on social media may violate the canon’s prohibition against lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the pecuniary interests of others, even if the judge is not identified as a judge in the post. It would also state that a judge may not “dislike,” rate negatively, or submit negative comments about a product, service, or business on the Internet. Second, proposed commentary would add a cross-reference to canon 4C(3)(d)(iv), which allows a judge to be a speaker, guest of honor, or recipient of an award for public or charitable service at a fundraising event. After receiving and reviewing comments on these proposals, the committee will make recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding the proposed amendments.

The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics proposes amendments to canon 3B(9) and its commentary that would allow a judge to comment publicly about a pending case that formed the basis of criticism of a judge during an election or recall campaign, provided the comment would not reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of the proceeding. The proposed commentary would advise that it may be preferable for a third party, rather than the judge, to respond or issue statements in connection with the allegations concerning the decision. After receiving and reviewing comments on this proposal, the committee will make recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding the proposed amendments.

The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics proposes amendments to canon 4C(3)(d)(i) and its commentary. These proposed amendments would allow a judge to solicit funds for an organization from retired judges who are not serving in the Temporary Assigned Judges Program, practicing law, or providing alternative dispute resolution services. Currently, a judge may solicit funds only from family members or “other judges,” but not from subordinate judicial officers, temporary judges, or any retired judges. After receiving and reviewing comments on this proposal, the committee will make recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding the proposed amendments.

The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics proposes amending canon 4E(1) to allow a judge to act as a health care representative for a person whose preexisting relationship with the judge would prevent the judge from hearing a case involving that person. Currently, the canon prohibits a judge from acting as a fiduciary except for family members. After receiving and reviewing comments on this proposal, the committee will make recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding the proposed amendment.

The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics proposes amendments to the commentary following canon 5A. The canon prohibits a judge from publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for nonjudicial office. The commentary states that a judge, however, may publicly endorse a judicial candidate because judges are uniquely qualified to assess a judicial candidate’s suitability for judicial office. The proposed amendment would also allow a judge to publicly oppose a judicial candidate. After receiving and reviewing comments on this proposal, the committee will make recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding the proposed amendments.

The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics proposes amending the commentary following canon 5B(4) to add a cross-reference to Government Code section 8314. That statute prohibits elected officials from using public resources, including buildings, telephones, and state-compensated time, for a campaign activity. After receiving and reviewing comments on this proposal, the committee will make recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding the proposed amendment.

The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics (committee) seeks comment on the proposed amendment of canon 4C(3)(d)(iii) and its commentary pertaining to personal solicitation by judges of membership in various organizations. After receiving and reviewing comments on this proposal, the committee will make a recommendation to the Supreme Court regarding the proposed amendments. The full text of the proposed amendments is attached.

The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) has posted a draft formal opinion addressing whether and to what extent a judge may advise family members regarding matters that implicate legal issues. Under rule 9.80(i)(2) of the California Rules of Court, the committee publishes formal written advisory opinions that address judicial ethics topics of interest to the judiciary and the public, at the request of judicial officers and candidates for judicial office. Comments submitted in response to this invitation to comment are deemed not to be confidential and may be made available for public review at the committee’s discretion, as set forth on CJEO’s website.

The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions has posted a proposed formal opinion addressing the ethical duties of judges with supervisorial duties when a complaint is filed against a trial judge under their supervision, addressing circumstances where the disclosure to the trial judge of ex parte communications is necessary. Under rule 9.80(i)(2) of the California Rules of Court, the committee publishes formal written advisory opinions that address judicial ethics topics of interest to the judiciary and the public, at the request of judicial officers and judicial candidates.

The Court Interpreters Advisory Panel proposes revisions to the Professional Standards and Ethics for California Court Interpreters (fifth edition). These revisions are necessary to update the document and address new ethical challenges in remote and hybrid interpreting, and interpreters conduct on social media. The ethics document is based on California Rules of Court, rule 2.890.

The Court Interpreters Advisory Panel (CIAP) proposes revisions to the current Guidelines for Approval of Certification Programs for Interpreters for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Persons (Guidelines), and a certification program approval process that is more responsive to the interpreter marketplace and the testing and certification landscape. The CIAP’s revisions to the Guidelines are necessary to keep pace with the evolving interpreter marketplace and to address the shortage of certified American Sign Language (ASL) court interpreters to meet growing demands. Revisions are in alignment with CIAP’s annual agenda, and will allow for greater flexibility, encouraging the emergence of additional ASL court interpreter testing entities to meet the growing certification needs.

The Court Interpreters Advisory Panel proposes to amend rule 2.893 of the California Rules of Court and revise four forms to conform with recent statutory changes enacted by Assembly Bill 1032 (Pacheco; Stats. 2023, ch. 556), relating to provisionally qualified court interpreters.

To increase the number of qualified American Sign Language (ASL) court interpreters for California in a cost-effective manner, the Court Interpreters Advisory Panel (CIAP) proposes that the Judicial Council approve the Texas Office of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services (DHHS) Board for Evaluation of Interpreters (BEI) as a testing entity for ASL court interpreter certification for a period of four years and add to the Judicial Council Master List of Interpreters holders of the Texas BEI Court Interpreter Certification who apply for reciprocity. CIAP also proposes the council direct CIAP to undertake further work and develop a future proposal for the council to potentially certify persons with ASL generalist credentials to perform work in the courts, which may include California court-specific training requirements; and direct CIAP to propose revisions to the current Guidelines for Approval of Certification Programs for Interpreters for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Persons as a future project and develop a recommendation for a process for approving ASL court interpreter certification programs that is more responsive to the current interpreter marketplace and testing and certification landscape.

The annual Budget Act specifies that the Judicial Council sets compensation rates and policies for court interpreters. In April 2018, the Court Executives Advisory Committee (CEAC) voted to form a working group to review and update the Payment Policies for Contract Court Interpreters. The Judicial Council’s Executive and Planning Committee approved the formation of the CEAC Ad Hoc Working Group on Interpreter Payment Policy in December 2018. The policies have not been updated since 2007, and the CEAC recognized the need to update these policies due to continuing challenges in contracting with court interpreters. The CEAC is recommending an increase to the daily compensation rates, standardized travel reimbursements rates in accordance with the Judicial Council Financial Policies and Procedures Manual, a change to the policy title, as well as other changes.

To implement Recommendation 64 in the Strategic Plan for Language Access in the California Courts adopted by the Judicial Council in January 2015, and to fulfill the legislative mandate to adopt standards and requirements for interpreter discipline, the Court Interpreters Advisory Panel proposes to (1) repeal California Rules of Court, rule 2.891, on periodic review of court interpreter skills and professional conduct, and adopt new rule 2.891; and (2) adopt the California Court Interpreter Credential Review Procedures. The new rule of court directs the courts to the credential review procedures, which establish a process for the Judicial Council, as the court interpreter credentialing body, through Legal Services office staff, to review allegations of professional misconduct or malfeasance against a California certified or registered court interpreter. Any adjudications would be conducted by the California Office of Administrative Hearings.

In an action by email on April 21, the Court Security Advisory Committee agreed to request public comment on the draft proposed Judicial Council Policy on Security Systems Program, with the goal of recommending to the Judicial Council that it adopt the final proposed policy at its September 2023 meeting. Staff presented the draft to the Court Security Advisory Committee in November 2022 to document existing internal procedures, and the committee discussed the benefit of proposing it as a Judicial Council policy at its February 2023 meeting.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes a new retail crime restraining order to implement Assembly Bill 3209 (Stats. 2024, ch. 169). The order would prohibit defendants convicted of specified offenses from entering the premises of a protected retail establishment for up to two years.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes adding two new advisements to the felony plea form in light of recent case law and Proposition 36 (“The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act”) approved by voters in the General Election on November 5, 2024. The committee also recommends clarifying language about the factual basis for the plea.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes amending rule 4.433 of the California Rules of Court to add a reference to the parole periods described in Penal Code section 3000.01. This reference would appear in subdivision (e), which describes the sentencing judge’s advisement to the defendant about the parole period to be served after expiration of the sentence.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes revising six criminal forms to incorporate firearm and body armor prohibitions enacted in recent legislation. The committee also proposes further revisions to the plea and relinquishment forms in this proposal (forms CR-101, CR-102, and CR-210) to reflect new procedures on firearm relinquishment, clarify prohibited items and relinquishment requirements, and refer to the possibility of a lifetime prohibition on firearm possession for misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. Finally, the committee proposes additional revisions to the felony plea form (form CR-101) based on other statutory changes, and to the criminal protective orders (forms CR-160 and CR-161) based on stakeholder suggestions.

The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee and Criminal Law Advisory Committee propose revising form MIL-100, effective January 1, 2025. The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee proposes revising form MIL-100 to implement the requirements of Family Code section 211.5, which was added by Senate Bill 1182 (Stats. 2022, ch. 385). The proposed changes would allow the court to comply with section 211.5 when the form is filed in a family law case involving a person who has military, veteran, reserve, or active status. The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes additional revisions to form MIL-100 to clarify procedures under Penal Code section 858 when the form is filed in a criminal case, and to reference treatment options for pretrial diversion under Penal Code section 1001.80. The committees also propose updating and reformatting the information on the back of the form for improved readability.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes a rule of court to implement legislation requiring the Judicial Council to develop qualifications for the appointment of counsel in superior court habeas corpus proceedings under Penal Code section 1473(f).1 Section 1473(f) is part of the Racial Justice Act, which prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a conviction or sentence based on race, ethnicity, or national origin and allows petitioners to make claims for relief based on violations of this Act.

The Appellate Advisory Committee and the Criminal Law Advisory Committee propose amending rules 4.551, 8.385, and 8.386 of the California Rules of Court and revising Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (form HC-001), Motion to Vacate Conviction or Sentence (form CR-187), and Order on Motion to Vacate Conviction or Sentence (form CR-188) to implement the Racial Justice Act, which prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a conviction or sentence based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes amending the rule governing qualifications for appointed trial counsel in capital cases to clarify that appointment of qualified counsel applies to all capital cases unless the district attorney affirmatively states on the record that the death penalty will not be sought.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revisions to the optional Judicial Council felony plea form to reflect statutory changes regarding the right to a trial on circumstances in justifying the imposition of the upper term of a criminal offense or enhancement, and to improve consistency throughout the form.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revising optional criminal forms used to petition for dismissals and reductions of convictions and request sealing of arrest records. The proposed revisions reflect statutory changes that allow for automatic record relief, expand who is eligible for relief, and clarify the effect of relief granted.

The Probate and Mental Health Advisory Committee and the Criminal Law Advisory Committee propose one rule of court and two forms to implement recent legislation requiring the trial courts to report to the Secretary of State judicial determinations under Elections Code sections 2208–2211 disqualifying a person from voting or restoring a person’s right to register to vote. The legislation expressly required the Judicial Council to adopt rules and forms, including a mandatory form for the courts to use to furnish the required reports.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revisions to the optional Judicial Council Petition for Resentencing Based on Health Conditions due to Military Service Listed in Penal Code Section 1170.91(b) (form CR-412/MIL-412). These revisions would clarify that the petitioner may apply for relief if a health condition was discovered after the original sentencing.

Summary: The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revisions to the optional Judicial Council petition for resentencing based on health conditions due to military service to reflect statutory changes to Penal Code section 1170.91(b). This section was amended to delete the requirement that the petitioner was sentenced before January 1, 2015, and to add exclusions for petitioners convicted of specified serious and violent felony offenses and offenses requiring sex offender registration. The committee also recommends technical and formatting revisions to comply with Judicial Council form standards. Deadline: Comments must be submitted by Friday, January 20, 2023 at, 5:00 PM (Pacific Time)

Summary: The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revisions to the optional Judicial Council form used by defendants to state financial eligibility for appointment of counsel and record on appeal at public expense to reflect the repeal of Penal Code section 987.8 by Assembly Bill 1869 (Stats. 2020, ch. 92). The repeal of section 987.8 removed the authority of the court to make a post proceeding determination of the defendant’s ability to pay and to order the defendant to reimburse the county for the costs of the public defender. Deadline: Comments must be submitted by Friday, January 20, 2023 at, 5:00 PM (Pacific Time)

Summary: The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends amendments to rule 4.130 of the California Rules of Court to reflect the renumbering of Penal Code section 1001.36, statutory changes to Penal Code section 1369(a) regarding treatment with antipsychotic medication of a defendant found incompetent to stand trial, and minor, non substantive technical revisions. Deadline: Comments must be submitted by Friday, January 20, 2023 at, 5:00 PM (Pacific Time)

Summary: The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends two optional forms relating to resentencing, dismissal, and sealing of Penal Code section 653.22 convictions. Senate Bill 357 (Weiner; Stats. 2022, ch. 86), effective January 1, 2023, repeals Penal Code section 653.22 (loitering with the intent to commit prostitution) and adds Penal Code section 653.29, which outlines the process for resentencing, dismissal, and sealing of section 653.22 convictions. Penal Code section 653.29(f) specifically instructs the Judicial Council to “promulgate and make available all necessary forms to enable the filing of petitions and applications provided in this section.” The proposal includes a request for relief and a court order granting or denying relief. Deadline: Comments must be submitted by Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at, 5:00 PM (Pacific Time)

Summary: The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revisions to two optional Judicial Council plea forms and the optional Judicial Council firearm relinquishment findings form to reflect statutory changes to the definition of firearm in Penal Code section 16520(b). The committee also recommends additional revisions to one of the plea forms to reflect accurate mandatory minimum probation terms and make minor, nonsubstantive technical changes. Deadline: Comments must be submitted by Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at, 5:00 PM (Pacific Time)

Summary: The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revisions to two mandatory Judicial Council criminal protective orders to (1) reflect statutory changes to the definition of firearm in Penal Code section 16520(b), with an impact on Penal Code section 136.2 and Code of Civil Procedure section 527.9; (2) reflect statutory changes adding “reproductive coercion” as an example of “coercive control” in Family Code section 6320; (3) be consistent with similar provisions in the civil protective orders; and (4) improve the forms’ useability and accuracy. The committee circulated proposed revisions to the two mandatory criminal protective orders from April to May 2022 and is now proposing further revisions to those forms in light of the recent statutory changes. The committee also recommends revisions to a mandatory Judicial Council order to surrender firearms in domestic violence criminal cases to reflect statutory changes to the definition of firearms as described above and to be consistent with previously circulated proposed revisions to the criminal protective orders. Deadline: Comments must be submitted by Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at, 5:00 PM (Pacific Time)

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revisions to two optional Judicial Council forms relating to vacating a conviction or sentence to implement recent amendments to Penal Code section 1473.7(a)(1) that became effective January 1, 2022, and to reflect case law interpreting that statute. The committee circulated proposed revisions from February to March 2022 and is proposing further revisions in light of the comments received.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revisions to two mandatory Judicial Council criminal protective orders to (1) increase readability through design changes and the use of clearer language; (2) reflect changes to Family Code section 6320; (3) be consistent with the fields in the California Restraining and Protective Order System (CARPOS) database; (4) change references to “sex” to “gender,” and include a gender nonbinary option; (5) replace the three year expiration default; (6) include prohibitions on firearm precursor parts; (7) clarify the scope of specified provisions; (8) add a limited contact option to reflect Penal Code section 136.2(a)(1)(G)(i); (9) revise warnings and notices; (10) add a new law enforcement instruction section; (11) add a provision for the court to indicate that it finds that the victim’s family members have been targeted or harmed by the defendant (for postconviction orders issued under Penal Code section 136.2(i)(1)); (12) add a provision for the court to indicate that it finds that a percipient witness has been harassed by the defendant (for postconviction orders issued under Penal Code1 section 136.2(i)(2)); (13) delete the ammunition prohibition on form CR-161; (14) delete the provision on recording of prohibited communications on form CR-161; and (15) delete the federal punishment reference on form CR-161.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revisions to two optional Judicial Council forms in response to recent amendments to Penal Code section 1473.7(a)(1) that became effective January 1, 2022. These revisions would allow a moving party to seek relief based on a prejudicial error that interfered with the party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. Additionally, the forms revisions to implement recent case law and clarify the forms would (1) clarify the out-of-custody requirement (see People v. Rodriguez (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 301); (2) include a request for appointment of counsel (see People v. Fryhaat (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 969); (3) add provisions around timeliness of the motion; and(4) simplify the language in the motion to aid self-represented petitioners.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends amendments to California Rules of Court, rule 4.130, to reflect statutory changes to Penal Code section 1370 authorizing the Department of State Hospitals to conduct a reevaluation of a defendant found to be incompetent to stand trial in specified circumstances, and statutory changes to Penal Code section 1370.01 regarding defendants found incompetent to stand trial in misdemeanor criminal proceedings.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes amendments to specified felony sentencing rules of the California Rules of Court to reflect several major legislative changes were made to sentencing of felony offenses and enhancements, which went into effect January 1, 2022. The recommended amendments will reflect statutory changes (1) requiring aggravated factors to be stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt when imposing the upper term of a felony offense or enhancement; (2) allowing courts to consider as an aggravating factor that a defendant has suffered one or more prior convictions, based on certified official records, but that this exception may not be used to select the upper term of an enhancement; (3) discontinuing commitments of juveniles to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice; (4) regarding mitigating circumstances requiring imposition of the lower term; (5) identifying specified mitigating circumstances for consideration in sentencing; (6) allowing an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different laws to be punished under either of those provisions; and (7) amending dismissal of enhancements due to specified mitigating circumstances. The proposal would also clarify that courts may consider aggravating factors in exercising discretion in imposing the middle term instead of a low term, denying probation, ordering consecutive sentences, or determining whether to exercise discretion pursuant to Penal Code section 1385(c) and make nonsubstantive technical amendments.

The Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee recommends amending rule 10.56 of the California Rules of Court to expand and clarify its areas of focus and duties. This recommendation would allow the advisory committee to better address judicial leadership and court processes impacting collaborative justice courts and similar programs that impact individuals who are moving through the court system and who have mental illnesses, substance use disorders, or co-occurring disorders. These proposed amendments seek to (1) revise the scope of duties to more accurately align with the evolution of collaborative courts, and (2) allow the advisory committee to address diversion and other collaborative programs involving the courts and informed by—or could benefit from—the incorporation of collaborative justice court principles and practices.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes revisions to Plea Form, With Explanations and Waiver of Rights—Felony (form CR-101) and Domestic Violence Plea Form with Waiver of Rights (Misdemeanor) (form CR-102) to conform to case law that has clarified the requirements for court and counsel immigration consequences advisements.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends four new optional forms to implement the provisions of Assembly Bill 2147 (Stats 2020, ch. 60), which authorizes conviction relief for a petitioner who successfully participated as an incarcerated individual hand crew member in a fire camp program operated by a county or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revising Order for Commitment (form CR-173) and revoking Order for Extended Commitment (form CR-174) to incorporate changes to the statutes governing sexually violent predator proceedings (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.), replace gender-specific pronouns, and incorporate revisions for procedural efficiency, accuracy, and clarity.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes a new optional form for proof of service of a petition to terminate sex offender registration and proof of current registration to the required law enforcement agencies and district attorney’s offices. Comments must be submitted by December 23, 2020 5:00 PM (Pacific)

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes three new mandatory forms and an optional information sheet to be used to petition the court for termination of sex offender registration, indicate a district attorney’s response to the petition, and make appropriate court orders. The state Department of Justice requested the Judicial Council’s assistance with forms to implement relevant parts of the Sex Offender Registration Act (Sen. Bill 384; Stats. 2017, ch. 541).

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revising optional criminal forms used to petition for dismissals and reductions of convictions and request sealing of arrest records to reflect statutory changes allowing for automatic record relief

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes revisions to Plea Form, With Explanations and Waiver of Rights—Felony (form CR-101) to conform to multiple statutory changes that have added or changed relevant sentencing requirements and advisements.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends amending California Rules of Court, rule 4.452, to (1) clarify that certain provisions apply only to sentences under Penal Code section 1170(h), (2) add procedures for when a subsequent court sentences a defendant to state prison when the prior sentence was under section 1170(h), and (3) clarify that subsequent courts may not increase the custody or mandatory supervision portion of the sentence imposed by the previous court. The amendments were suggested by a prosecutor and a committee member.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends revising the criminal forms implementing ignition interlock device requirements to conform to statutory changes, increase clarity and usability, and make nonsubstantive technical changes.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends adopting a new rule of court establishing procedures for resentencing recommendations under Penal Code section 1170(d)(1) (see Link A).

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends amending California Rules of Court, rule 4.530, to state that only the receiving court may certify records from a case and to allow for electronic transmission of a certified copy of the court file. The amendments were suggested by a judicial administrator.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends four new mandatory forms and an optional information sheet to be used to petition the court for termination of sex offender registration, acknowledge receipt of a petition by the appropriate law enforcement agencies and district attorney’s offices, indicate a district attorney’s response to the petition, and make appropriate court orders. The state Department of Justice requested the Judicial Council’s assistance with forms to implement relevant parts of the Sex Offender Registration Act (Sen. Bill 384; Stats. 2017, ch. 541).

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes adding standard 4.15 to the California Standards of Judicial Administration to provide guidance to judges and court administrators on procedures to implement vacatur relief under Penal Code section 236.14. Section 236.14 provides, in relevant part, for a petition process to vacate an arrest or conviction for a nonviolent offense while the petitioner was a victim of human trafficking, and for the sealing and destruction of the petitioner’s arrest records.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends amending the language in the immigration consequences sections of the two Judicial Council plea forms, Plea Form, With Explanations and Waiver of Rights—Felony (form CR-101) and Domestic Violence Plea Form With Waiver of Rights (form CR-102), to conform to the plain language of Penal Code section 1016.5.1 The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC)2 suggested this change based on concerns that the current language in these forms contains inaccuracies.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends removing a portion of the Interpreter’s Statement on three Judicial Council criminal forms to ensure that the statement accurately describes the role and responsibilities of interpreters. The committee also recommends adding the proposed Interpreter’s Statement to the form used by mentally disordered defendants to indicate whether the defendant is challenging the Penal Code section 1606 report recommending confinement or continued outpatient treatment, or is waiving that right.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends amending rule 4.130 of the California Rules of Court relating to mental competency proceedings in criminal cases to incorporate changes due to Assembly Bill 1810 (Stats. 2018, ch. 34), a bill that significantly altered the statutory landscape for mental competency proceedings.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes a new optional form, Proof of Service (Criminal Record Clearing) (form CR-106) and an accompanying information sheet, Information on How to File a Proof of Service in Criminal Record Clearing Requests (form CR-106-INFO), for petitioners to use with requests for a court to review a criminal record for dismissal, vacatur, resentencing, reduction, sealing, or other record clearing remedies.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends a new optional form, Petition for Resentencing Based on Health Conditions From Military Service Listed in Penal Code Section 1170.91(b) (form CR-412/MIL-412), for petitions for resentencing under Assembly Bill 865 (Stats. 2018, ch. 523). The legislation allows veterans to benefit retroactively from the passage of Penal Code section 1170.91, which permits a judge to consider enumerated conditions (sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems) that have resulted from military service as a mitigating factor at sentencing.

Notice: Referendum 1856 (18-0009), Referendum to Overturn a 2018 Law That Replaced Money Bail System with a System Based on Public Safety Risk, qualified for the November 2020 ballot, after being certified by the Secretary of State on January 16, 2019. Qualification of the referendum has the effect of staying SB 10. At this time, the Judicial Council of California has suspended implementation of the legislation, including adoption of California Rules of Court. If you have specific questions, please contact the council’s Criminal Justice Services office: crimjusticeoffice@jud.ca.gov Criminal Procedure: Proper Use of Pretrial Risk Assessment Information; Review and Release Standards for Pretrial Assessment Services for Persons Assessed as Medium Risk Item Number: SP18-23 Summary: The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes adoption of two new California Rules of Court: rule 4.10, which sets forth the proper use of pretrial risk assessment information, and rule 4.40, which addresses review and release standards for Pretrial Assessment Services for persons assessed as medium risk. These proposed rules are intended to fulfill the Judicial Council’s obligation under Penal Code section 1320.24(a) to adopt rules and forms, as needed, to implement specific elements of Senate Bill 10. Deadline to submit comments: Review and submit comments by December 14, 2018

The Proposition 66 Rules Working Group is proposing amendments to an existing rule relating to appeals from decisions in habeas corpus proceedings and the adoption of several new rules and a form specifically addressing appeals from superior court decisions on death penalty–related habeas corpus petitions. These proposed rules and the form are intended to partially fulfill the Judicial Council’s rule-making obligations under Proposition 66 by establishing procedures for this new type of appeal.

The Proposition 66 Rules Working Group is proposing the adoption of six new rules of court relating to superior court procedures for death penalty–related habeas corpus proceedings. These proposed rules are intended to partially fulfill the Judicial Council’s rule-making obligations under Proposition 66 by establishing procedures for the superior courts’ new responsibility for this type of proceeding.

Senate Bill 670 (Jackson; Stats. 2017, ch. 287) amended Penal Code section 1170(h),1 effective January 1, 2018, to require courts to determine the county or counties of incarceration and supervision for defendants when imposing judgments concurrent or consecutive to another judgment or judgments previously imposed under section 1170(h) in another county or counties. SB 670 also amended section 1170.3, to require the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court providing criteria for trial judges to consider at the time of sentencing when determining the county or counties of incarceration and supervision. This proposal would implement section 1170.3 by amending California Rules of Court, rule 4.452, to guide the second or subsequent court when determining the county or counties of supervision. The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes amendments to rule 4.452 to make it consistent with statutory changes and to incorporate further substantive changes suggested by commenters when this proposal circulated previously.

The Proposition 66 Rules Working Group is proposing amendments to the rule relating to the qualifications of counsel in death penalty appeals and habeas corpus proceedings, including moving to a new rule the provisions regarding the qualifications of counsel in death penalty– related habeas corpus proceedings. These proposed rule changes are intended to fulfill the Judicial Council’s obligation under Proposition 66 to reevaluate the competency standards for the appointment of counsel in death penalty direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings

The Proposition 66 Rules Working Group is proposing the adoption of two new rules and two new forms relating to the superior court appointment of counsel in death penalty–related habeas corpus proceedings. These proposed rules and forms are intended to partially fulfill the Judicial Council’s rule-making obligations under Proposition 66 by providing procedures for superior courts to determine if an attorney meets the minimum qualifications for counsel in death penalty–related habeas corpus proceedings and to appoint such counsel for indigent persons subject to a judgment of death.

The Proposition 66 Rules Working Group is proposing the adoption of several new rules and amendments to several existing rules relating to preparation of the record on appeal in death penalty cases. The working group is also proposing the adoption of two new mandatory forms and the approval of four new optional forms designed to assist in the record preparation process. These proposed rules and forms are intended to partially fulfill the Judicial Council’s rulemaking obligations under Proposition 66 by making the record preparation process in death penalty cases more efficient.

Senate Bill 670 (Jackson; Stats. 2017, ch. 287) amended Penal Code section 1170(h),1 effective January 1, 2018, requiring courts to determine the county or counties of incarceration and supervision for defendants when imposing judgments concurrent or consecutive to another judgment or judgments previously imposed under section 1170(h) in another county or counties. SB 670 also amended section 1170.3, requiring the Judicial Council to adopt rules of court providing criteria for the consideration of trial judges at the time of sentencing when determining the county or counties of incarceration and supervision. This proposal would implement section 1170.3 by amending California Rules of Court, rule 4.452 to guide the second or subsequent court when determining the county or counties of supervision.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes revisions to the Judicial Council form used by non-capital petitioners to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This proposal would update the instructions regarding filing in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal to reflect amendments to the appellate rules; replace or add authority that is more recent or more on point for the propositions they support; add language relevant to successive petitions and repetitive claims in item 12 to include the court in which the petition is filed; and add citations as authority for the procedural bars of successiveness and repetitiveness. These changes are in response to a request from members of the California Supreme Court’s Central Criminal Staff.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes revisions to two Judicial Council forms in response to recent legislation that authorizes dismissal relief for defendants sentenced to state prison for a felony that, if committed after the 2011 Realignment legislation, would have been eligible for sentencing to a county jail under Penal Code section 1170(h)(5). The proposed revisions would incorporate the new statutory basis for relief on both forms.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes two new optional forms, Petition to Vacate Arrest or Conviction (Human Trafficking Victim) (form CR-407) and Order to Vacate Arrest or Conviction (Human Trafficking Victim) (form CR-408) in response to recent legislation1 that establishes a petition process under Penal Code section 236.14 to vacate a conviction or adjudication for a person who has been arrested for, convicted of, or adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court for committing a nonviolent offense while he or she was a victim of human trafficking, and for the sealing and destruction of the petitioner’s arrest and court records.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes amending the California rule of court relating to mental competency proceedings in criminal cases. This proposal would amend the rule to make court-appointed experts’ reports on a criminal defendant’s competency to stand trial presumptively confidential, while also including procedures for interested parties to request access to the experts’ reports. The proposal was suggested by a judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes the adoption of a California rule of court relating to determinations of probable cause under Penal Code section 1368.1(a)(2). Senate Bill 684 (Bates; Stats. 2017, ch. 246), effective January 1, 2018, amended Penal Code section 1368.1(a)(2) to allow a prosecuting attorney to request a probable cause determination for a defendant who is incompetent to stand trial, if the complaint charges specified offenses and the probable cause determination is sought “solely for the purpose of establishing the defendant is gravely disabled” under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5008(h)(1)(B), commonly referred to as a Murphy conservatorship.

Senate Bill 239 (Weiner; Stats. 2017, ch. 537), effective January 1, 2018, invalidates convictions for violations of Penal Code section 647f (felony prostitution) and adds section 1170.22 to the Penal Code, which outlines a petition and application process for the dismissal of section 647f convictions. The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes two optional forms to be used for petitioners/applicants to request the court for relief under Penal Code section 1170.22. Penal Code section 1170.22(i) specifically instructs the Judicial Council to “promulgate and make available all necessary forms to enable the filing of petitions and applications provided in this section.”

Senate Bill 393 (Lara; Stats. 2017, ch. 680), effective January 1, 2018, added section 851.91 to the Penal Code, which outlines how an individual who suffered an arrest that did not lead to a conviction can file a petition to have the arrest and related records sealed. The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes the development of a petition to seal arrests as directed by Penal Code section 851.91(b)(3), which requires the Judicial Council to furnish forms.

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes revisions to the Judicial Council Plea Form with Explanations and Waiver of Rights—Felony (form CR-101) in response to recent case law that provided guidance regarding trial courts’ determinations whether jury trial waivers were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and the information that must be conveyed to defendants to make these determinations. In conjunction with other proposed revisions to form CR-101 that had circulated for public comment, the proposed revisions regarding jury trial waiver were approved by the Judicial Council effective January 1, 2018, without a prior period of public comment but with Judicial Council direction that the committee circulate the proposed jury trial waiver revisions for public comment in the winter 2018 cycle.