Stand With Victims: Tell Governor Newsom to Sign AB 1902
AB 1902: Juvenile Detention Extension Hearings
🚨 WE HAVE JUST DAYS TO ASK GOVERNOR NEWSOM TO SIGN AB 1902
After months of work, AB 1902 has reached the final stage of the legislative process. Now we need your help one more time.
AB 1902 has received extraordinary bipartisan support throughout its journey through the California Legislature — advancing without a single "No" vote.
The bill passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee 7-0, the Assembly Appropriations Committee 13-0, and the full Assembly 66-0.
It continued receiving unanimous support in the Senate committees, and the full Senate voted unanimously to pass AB 1902 35-0!
Because the Senate amended the bill, it must return to the Assembly for concurrence before being sent to Governor Gavin Newsom.
Before the bill reaches the Governor, we have a very short window to make our voices heard.
Please take just a few minutes to send Governor Newsom a letter asking him to SIGN AB 1902.
Hundreds of Californians have already written letters supporting this legislation. Many of you have written more than once as the bill moved through the Legislature. We are asking you to write one final letter.
The Legislature has listened. Now we need the Governor to hear us.
A Remarkable Bipartisan Journey
AB 1902 is authored by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin of Santa Cruz County and has brought together legislators from across the political spectrum.
Throughout the Assembly and the Senate, not a single legislator voted against the bill.
As AB 1902 moved through the Senate, Senator John Laird — a highly respected, longtime California legislator and former Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency — agreed to present and guide AB 1902 on the Senate floor on Assemblymember Pellerin's behalf.
His willingness to take on that role represents another important show of support for this legislation.
AB 1902 is not about undoing juvenile justice reform. It addresses specific problems discovered when California's juvenile detention extension law was used for the first time.
Why AB 1902 Is Needed
How California Law Changed
Over the past decade, California dramatically changed how its justice system handles juveniles accused of serious crimes.
In 2016, voters approved Proposition 57, ending prosecutors' ability to directly file juvenile cases in adult court. Instead, a judge determines at a transfer hearing whether an eligible juvenile should be tried as an adult.
In 2018, SB 1391 further changed the law by generally prohibiting the transfer of youth who committed crimes at ages 14 or 15 to adult criminal court — even for extremely serious offenses.
California subsequently closed its Division of Juvenile Justice through SB 823 (2020) and related legislation. Responsibility for youth custody, treatment and supervision shifted to counties.
As part of that transition, California created a process under Welfare and Institutions Code § 876 allowing continued detention in limited circumstances when an individual reaching the end of juvenile court jurisdiction continues to pose a serious danger to the public.
Until recently, that process had never been fully tested.
Madyson Middleton's Case Exposed Gaps in the Law
In 2015, 8-year-old Madyson Middleton of Santa Cruz was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered by her 15-year-old neighbor, Adrian Gonzalez.
His case was initially prosecuted in adult court. Changes in California law ultimately required that it be handled within the juvenile justice system.
As Gonzalez approached age 25, the Santa Cruz County Probation Department requested that the District Attorney seek an extension of his detention under Welfare and Institutions Code § 876.
What followed was an approximately three-month jury trial.
After hearing the evidence, 12 jurors unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt that Gonzalez continued to pose a serious danger to the public.
His detention was extended.
Yet only a year and a half after that verdict, the court process is already beginning again in preparation for the next detention extension hearing — demonstrating that a two-year extension does not provide victims' families anything close to two years free from court proceedings.
California's first proceeding of this kind also exposed significant ambiguities and procedural gaps in the law.
What AB 1902 Fixes
AB 1902 does not automatically extend anyone's detention.
It does not take the decision away from the courts.
Instead, it improves the legal process California already created for these rare cases.
Among its provisions, AB 1902:
- Clarifies custodial jurisdiction so that an individual does not simply fall outside the court's authority while an extension proceeding is still underway;
- Clarifies evidentiary procedures, including the use of hearsay at the probable-cause stage;
- Allows either party to petition for a continuation hearing;
- Allows longer periods between repeated detention-extension proceedings — up to three years under the Senate-amended bill; and
- Creates an additional review mechanism when a probation department does not initiate an extension petition, allowing a district attorney's office to request review by the Office of Youth and Community Restoration.
These changes provide greater clarity and consistency while preserving due process and judicial oversight.
Why This Matters to Victims and Families
Under existing law, a detention extension lasts only two years.
That means even after a jury unanimously determines beyond a reasonable doubt that someone remains dangerous, victims and their families may have to prepare for another lengthy proceeding just two years later.
For Madyson's family, that means reopening evidence surrounding the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of their 8-year-old daughter — again and again.
AB 1902 allows the court, when appropriate, to extend the period between these proceedings to up to three years.
It is a modest change, but for families who have already endured unimaginable loss, that additional time matters.
One Final Letter. One Final Push.
AB 1902 has survived months of committee hearings, negotiations, amendments and votes.
And it has done so with remarkable bipartisan support and without a single "No" vote to date.
Democrats and Republicans have agreed that the gaps discovered in California's juvenile detention extension process should be fixed.
Now we need Governor Newsom to agree.
Please send your letter today asking Governor Gavin Newsom to SIGN AB 1902.
Even if you wrote during the Assembly phase...
Even if you wrote before the Senate committee hearings...
Even if you have already written more than once...
Please write one final time.
Your earlier letters helped get AB 1902 this far.
Now let's finish what we started.
ASK GOVERNOR NEWSOM TO SIGN AB 1902
Support
• California Assemblymember, Gail Pellerin, District 28 (Author)
• California Senator John Laird, District 17 (Floor Manager for AB1902)
• Santa Cruz County District Attorney, Jeff Rosell (Sponsor)
• Kim De Serpa Supervisor, District 2 Santa Cruz County
• Santa Cruz County Sheriff-Coroner, Chris Clark
• Santa Cruz Police Chief, Bernie Escalante
• Watsonville Police Chief, Brian Shab
• Capitola Police Chief, Sarah Ryan
• Scotts Valley Police Chief, Jayson Rutherford
• Santa Cruz Police Chief, Kevin Vogel, Retired
• Santa Cruz Police Detective, Laurel Schonfield, Retired
• Scotts Valley Mayor, Donna Lind
• Watsonville Mayor, Kristal Salcido
• California District Attorneys Association (CDAA)
• Walnut Avenue Family & Women’s Center
• Santa Cruz City Councilmember, Renee Golder
• California Probation Officers (CPOC)
• Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
• California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA)
• Crime Victims United
• Fallen Officer Foundation
• City of Scotts Valley
Thank you for your time and support!
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Tomasa Dueñas
State Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, Chief of Staff
tomasa.duenas@asm.ca.gov
916-319-2028
Letter Campaign by
