Crimes: vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.

Assembly Member Patterson’s measure would extend the probation term for individuals convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, setting a minimum of three years and a maximum of five years for probation, replacing the prior framework in which probation for this offense could be shorter depending on whether the conviction was misdemeanor or felony. The change sits within a broader statutory scheme governing DUI-related offenses and their penalties.

The bill retains and refines definitions related to vehicular offenses while intoxicated. It continues to classify gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated as the unlawful killing of a person in the driving of a vehicle, with the conduct tied to driving in violation of intoxication-related provisions and involving gross negligence in certain circumstances. It distinguishes between a grossly negligent act and a non-gross-negligence act, with separate sentencing provisions for each. For gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, the bill provides state-prison sentencing options of four, six, or ten years. For vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated without gross negligence, the bill prescribes imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year or, alternatively, a term under the applicable sentencing scheme of 16 months, 2 years, or 4 years.

The bill also introduces intensified penalties for defendants with prior convictions under this section or related statutes. Those individuals could be punished by a state prison term of 15 years to life, with Article 2.5 of the Penal Code procedure governing reductions to the term. In all cases, the probation term specified in subdivision (e) would apply when probation is granted, and the bill preserves conditions that would allow charges of murder to be pursued if facts show implied malice or other qualifying intent. The measure notes that it does not preclude such homicide charges in appropriate circumstances.

Implementation and fiscal context accompany the statutory changes. The act includes a provision stating that it imposes a state-mandated local program due to the change in the probation period, while another provision asserts that no reimbursement is required by the act for local agencies or school districts because the costs would arise from creating or changing a crime or its penalty. The measure originated in the 2025–2026 California regular session, with an introduced date in February 2025, and it progressed through the Assembly and Senate in mid-2025 before being enrolled in September 2025.