81 Cal.App.5th 648
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Defendant Scotlane McCune pled no contest to felony hit-and-run causing injury and agreed to pay victim restitution; sentencing in June 2018 suspended judgment and placed him on five years' probation, with restitution amount deferred.
- The probation department later notified the court that the victim sought approximately $30,166 in medical damages; the exact restitution amount remained uncertain at sentencing.
- Assembly Bill 1950 took effect January 1, 2021, reducing the maximum felony probation term to two years; the probation department (with the DA) petitioned to terminate McCune’s probation and the court granted it, noting restitution liability remained.
- The prosecution then sought a restitution hearing; the trial court asked for briefing on whether it retained jurisdiction to set the restitution amount after probation ended.
- The trial court ruled it retained jurisdiction under Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.46 and ordered restitution of $21,365.94; McCune appealed arguing the court lacked statutory authority once probation expired.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the court had statutory authority to determine and order restitution after probation termination when the restitution amount was deferred at sentencing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had statutory authority to set the amount of deferred victim restitution after defendant's probation ended | People: §1202.46 preserves the court’s jurisdiction to impose/modify restitution after sentencing when amount was deferred under §1202.4 | McCune: General probation statutes (e.g., §1203.3) limit modification to the probationary term; Hilton and Waters support that §1202.46 cannot extend jurisdiction beyond probation | Affirmed: §1202.46 grants jurisdiction to set restitution after probation ends when amount was deferred; no conflict with §1203.3; court followed §1202.4/§1202.46 and constitutional restitution mandate |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Zuniga, 79 Cal.App.5th 870 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (court may set deferred restitution after probation ends under §1202.46)
- People v. Bufford, 146 Cal.App.4th 966 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (§1202.46 preserves jurisdiction to set restitution despite defendant’s release)
- People v. Ford, 61 Cal.4th 282 (Cal. 2015) (trial court retains fundamental jurisdiction over parties and subject matter post-probation)
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (Cal. 2007) (§1202.4 requires restitution in every case, whether or not probation is granted)
- Hilton v. Superior Court, 239 Cal.App.4th 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (construed §1202.46 to be limited to probationary period)
- People v. Waters, 241 Cal.App.4th 822 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (similar to Hilton; limited post-probation restitution authority)
- In re Griffin, 67 Cal.2d 343 (Cal. 1967) (statutory text furnishes measure of power exercisable by court)