16 Cal.5th 980
Cal.2024Background
- Scotlane McCune was convicted of felony hit-and-run with injury and placed on five years’ probation, with an order to pay restitution to the victim in an amount to be determined.
- While McCune’s probation was ongoing, California enacted a law (Assembly Bill 1950) capping felony probation at two years, retroactively shortening McCune’s probation.
- After probation was terminated under the new law, the trial court scheduled and then fixed the amount of victim restitution.
- McCune objected, arguing the court lacked authority to set restitution after probation ended; the trial and appellate courts disagreed.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review to clarify whether courts retain authority, after probation ends, to finalize the monetary amount of a previously-ordered restitution obligation where the amount was initially deferred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (McCune) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a court have jurisdiction to fix deferred restitution after probation ends? | Yes; Penal Code sections 1202.4 & 1202.46 explicitly allow this, even post-probation. | No; authority to modify probation conditions, including restitution, ends with probation (PC 1203.3). | Yes; courts retain jurisdiction to fix restitution post-probation under PC 1202.4/1202.46. |
| Does the statute’s reference to Section 1170 limit the court’s authority to prison cases only? | No; the statutory language is broad and includes probation cases equally. | Yes; because of “notwithstanding Section 1170” language, applies only to prison sentences. | No; applies regardless of sentence—statute covers probation and non-probation cases. |
| Does Penal Code section 1203.3’s time limit on modifying probation restrict restitution setting? | No; Section 1202.46 provides separate, additional authority for restitution. | Yes; once probation ends, court’s power to modify any part of probation ends, including restitution. | No; section 1203.3 does not circumscribe the specific authority granted by section 1202.46. |
| Do prior appellate cases (Hilton/Waters) controlling probation-limited restitution still govern? | No; they misread the restitution statutes and conflict with the constitutional mandate. | Yes; those precedents support bar on restitution orders post-probation. | No; those cases are disapproved to the extent they conflict with this ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (Cal. 2007) (explaining the evolution of California’s restitution statutes and their application in probation/nonprobation cases)
- People v. Bufford, 146 Cal.App.4th 966 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that courts retain jurisdiction to set restitution after completion of a prison sentence)
- People v. Chavez, 4 Cal.5th 771 (Cal. 2018) (discussing limitations of court power after probation terminates, but distinguishable from this situation)