AB 1902: Juvenile Detention Extension Hearings

Background & Existing Law

Over the past decade, California has made significant changes to how it handles serious juvenile offenses.

First, in 2016, voters approved California Proposition 57. This law ended the practice of prosecutors directly filing charges against juveniles in adult court. Instead, prosecutors must request a transfer hearing, where a judge decides whether youth ages 14 and older should be tried as adults.

Second, SB 1391 (2018) went further by prohibiting prosecutors from seeking adult court transfer for 14- and 15-year-olds—even in cases involving serious offenses.

Third, SB 823 (2020) initiated the closure of the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), shifting responsibility for youth custody, treatment, and supervision from the state to county systems. SB 92 (2021) implemented this transition and created a process known as a juvenile detention extension hearing. This process allows a court to evaluate whether an individual who has completed their sentence at age 25 should remain in custody if they are found to still pose a serious threat to public safety.

The Problem

In 2015, Adrian Gonzalez, then 15 years and 9 months old, kidnapped, raped, and murdered his 8-year-old neighbor, Madyson Middleton. The crime shocked and devastated the Santa Cruz community.

Although the case was initially filed in adult court, it was later transferred to juvenile court following changes in state law. Gonzalez was then committed to a secure youth treatment facility, where he received rehabilitative services with the expectation that he would be released at age 25.

As that release date approached in 2024, the Santa Cruz County Probation Department requested that the District Attorney seek to extend his detention under Welfare and Institutions Code § 876. The District Attorney filed the petition, leading to a 3 month jury trial. In a unanimous decision, 12 jurors found—beyond a reasonable doubt—that Gonzalez continued to pose a serious threat to public safety. This marked the first detention extension hearing of its kind in California.

However, this process revealed serious gaps in the law.

There is uncertainty about whether courts retain jurisdiction if a case is still pending when an individual turns 25. Key evidentiary rules—such as the use of hearsay during early stages of the process—are unclear. Discovery procedures are not well defined. Additionally, only probation departments can initiate these hearings, limiting when and how they can be brought forward.

Perhaps most concerning, detention extensions are limited to just two years at a time. This means that even after a jury determines someone is unsafe for release, the case must be retried repeatedly. In this case, although the jury found Gonzalez unfit for release in 2025, the process will likely begin again in 2027—forcing the victim’s family and the community to relive the trauma all over again.

The Solution

AB 1902 makes several changes to the juvenile detention extension hearing process. Specifically, this bill:

1. Clarifies custodial jurisdiction;

2. Allows hearsay at the probable cause hearing;

3. Allows for either party to petition for a continuance hearing;

4. Increases the amount of time between extension hearings; and

5. In cases where probation does not initiate a petition for an extension detention hearing, allows a district attorney’s office to request the Office of Youth and Community Restoration review the case.

Our Success So Far

Thanks to the efforts of supporters across California, AB 1902 has successfully cleared every hurdle in the State Assembly—and has done so without receiving a single "No" vote.

The bill was approved by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on a unanimous 7-0 vote, passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a unanimous 13-0 vote, and was approved by the full Assembly on a unanimous 66-0 vote.

This overwhelming support demonstrates that legislators from across California recognize the need to address the procedural gaps revealed by the state's first juvenile detention extension hearing. AB 1902 is not a partisan issue. It is a practical, common-sense measure that improves clarity, consistency, and fairness within California's existing juvenile justice system.

The bill has now moved to the California Senate, where it will be considered by the Senate Public Safety Committee, Senate Appropriations Committee, and ultimately the full Senate.

Your voice can help ensure that Senators understand the importance of this legislation and the strong public support behind it. Please take a moment to send a letter and ask your Senator to support AB 1902.

Support

• California Assemblymember, Gail Pellerin, District 28 (author)

• 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