Kuhnel v. Super. Ct., A163307

Kellie Kuhnel was convicted of misdemeanor embezzlement and placed on three years’ probation on November 17, 2016.
About 11 months into probation, new fraud allegations arose; on December 11, 2017 the court summarily revoked probation and set a formal violation hearing for January 2018.
The formal hearing was repeatedly continued (including continuances in 2021); it was never held before Kuhnel moved on June 18, 2021 to terminate probation.
Assembly Bill 1950, effective January 1, 2021, reduced the default maximum misdemeanor probation term from three years to one year and has been held by multiple courts to apply retroactively to nonfinal cases.
Kuhnel argued retroactive application ended her probation after one year (November 17, 2017), divesting the court of jurisdiction; the People relied on Penal Code §1203.2(a) and People v. Leiva to argue summary revocation tolled the term and preserved jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal denied Kuhnel’s writ, holding the trial court’s summary revocation (made while probation was valid under then‑existing law) tolled the term and preserved authority to adjudicate the alleged violation despite AB 1950’s retroactive shortening.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kuhnel is estopped from challenging jurisdiction because she consented to continuances that placed the case after AB 1950's effective date	Kuhnel: she did not request or consent to the delays that caused any loss of jurisdiction and therefore is not estopped	People: Kuhnel caused/consented to continuances and thus may be estopped under Ford	Court: No estoppel — Ford is distinguishable; Kuhnel’s requested/consented continuances did not directly cause any jurisdictional loss because revocation occurred before the one‑year mark
Whether retroactive application of AB 1950 (one‑year misdemeanor probation) deprives the court of jurisdiction to adjudicate a violation that occurred while probation was valid but was summarily revoked after the one‑year mark	Kuhnel: AB 1950 applies retroactively; her probation ended after one year, so the court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the alleged violation	People: Section 1203.2(a) tolls the probationary period upon summary revocation and preserves court jurisdiction to adjudicate violations that occurred during the original term	Court: Held for People — summary revocation made while probation was valid tolled the term and preserved jurisdiction; retroactive shortening under Estrada does not strip courts of the jurisdiction conferred by §1203.2(a) in these circumstances

People v. Leiva, 56 Cal.4th 498 (explaining legislative intent behind tolling provision and that summary revocation preserves authority to adjudicate violations committed during the original probation term)
People v. Ford, 61 Cal.4th 282 (estoppel where defendant consented to continuances beyond probationary term)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (presumption that ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively)
People v. Quinn, 59 Cal.App.5th 874 (applying AB 1950 retroactively to shorten ongoing probationary terms)
Hilton v. Superior Court, 239 Cal.App.4th 766 (court loses authority to act after probationary term expires absent tolling)
People v. Journey, 58 Cal.App.3d 24 (summary revocation on proper day preserves jurisdiction to hold formal revocation hearing)