241 Cal. App. 4th 822
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant was charged in 2007 with grand theft embezzlement while a Bank of America employee who altered customer addresses to divert funds, resulting in losses of about $20,800 to victims.
- In 2008, defendant pled no contest; plea agreement contemplated restitution but the court sentenced to three years of probation and only imposed a $200 restitution fine, omitting BofA restitution.
- Probation was later revoked for a missed address change, and by May 2011 probation was terminated as successfully completed.
- In 2013 defendant sought to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor under 1203.4; the probation department noted that restitution had not previously been ordered despite a victim impact statement.
- In 2014 a restitution hearing was held after continued proceedings; defendant initially stipulated to $20,800 but later withdrew and contested the amount, resulting in an October 31, 2014 restitution order of $20,800.
- The People appeal arguing the court had jurisdiction to order restitution post-probation; defendant contends the court acted in excess of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution can be ordered after probation ends | Waters argues restitution is authorized under 1202.4/1202.46 and ongoing jurisdiction to determine losses. | Waters contends trial court loses jurisdiction once probation ends and cannot order restitution afterward. | The court acted in excess of jurisdiction; restitution cannot be ordered after probation. |
| Estoppel challenge to jurisdiction | People rely on estoppel from Griffin/Bakke/Ford when defendant delayed or consented to continuances. | Waters did not previously delay or consent, so estoppel does not apply. | Waters is not estopped from challenging the jurisdiction. |
| Effect of §1203.3 on post-probation restitution | Section 1203.3 and its subdivisions permit modification of probation and restitution during the term. | Post-probation restitution is outside the term and not permitted. | Restitution after probation is beyond §1203.3 authority; modification post-term is improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Griffin, 67 Cal.2d 343 (1967) (probation revocation limits; estoppel when seeking continuance after term)
- People v. Bakke, 42 Cal.3d 84 (1986) (stay/continuation does not exceed jurisdiction; related to probation)
- People v. Ford, 61 Cal.4th 282 (2015) (consent/continuance can affect estoppel; probation jurisdiction persists under certain conditions)
- Hilton v. Superior Court, 239 Cal.App.4th 766 (2014) (post-probation restitution lacking jurisdiction; 1203.3 and 1202.46 interaction)
- People v. Moreno, 108 Cal.App.4th 1 (2003) (post-judgment restitution authority distinctions)