People v. Leiva, 56 Cal. 4th 498

Leiva pled no contest to three counts of burglary of a vehicle and was placed on formal probation for three years, expiring April 11, 2003, but he was deported on release.
On September 21, 2001, the trial court summarily revoked probation for failing to report, issuing a bench warrant; neither court nor probation officials knew he had been deported.
November 10, 2008, after his arrest on the outstanding warrant, the court kept probation summarily revoked and scheduled a formal probation violation hearing for February 13, 2009; a supplemental report disclosed his deportation and February 2007 return to the U.S.
At the February 13, 2009 hearing, the People conceded a willful violation could not be proven; the court found a violation in 2007 for failing to report, reinstated and extended probation to June 6, 2011, with conditions about reporting after reentry.
Defendant was deported again in March 2009; in June 2009 a new hearing summarily revoked probation for failure to report; at a September 2009 hearing the court found a 2009 violation for illegal reentry and sentenced him to prison; defendant appealed challenging the authority to reinstate/extend probation after expiration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether tolling allows extension based on post-expiration conduct	People: tolling extends probation indefinitely.	Leiva: tolling preserves only adjudication for violations during the original period.	Tolling preserves jurisdiction to adjudicate violations during the original period, not indefinite extension.
Meaning of 'toll the running of the probationary period'	People: 'toll' means extend the period.	Leiva: 'toll' means abate/stop the running; otherwise absurd results.	Tolling is ambiguous; court rejects literal 'extend' but rejects absurd infinite extension; toll may abate but is not to indefinitely extend.
Constitutional and policy limits of tolling	People: tolling safeguards jurisdiction and due process in Morrissey/Vickers context.	Leiva: avoiding indefinite probation extension protects statutory time limits and due process.	Reading toll as indefinite extension raises due process and statutory-termination concerns; tolled only to preserve a timely Morrissey/Vickers hearing on a period-violation.

People v. Tapia, 91 Cal.App.4th 738 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (tolling preserves jurisdiction to decide whether a violation occurred during the unextended probation)
People v. DePaul, 137 Cal.App.3d 409 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (probation violation based on post-expiration conduct not allowed)
People v. Lewis, 7 Cal.App.4th 1949 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (tolling not to create a 'free pass' for undetermined period)
In re J. W., 29 Cal.4th 558 (Cal. 2002) (statutory construction and latent ambiguity guidance; avoid absurd results)