Case Title: People v. Ford

Citation: 

Docket Number: S212940

State: california

Court: California Supreme Court

Date: 2015-05-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
Filed 5/28/15 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S212940 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 1/3 A135733 
WILLIAM J. FORD, 
) 
 
) 
Sonoma County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. SCR-530837 
 
____________________________________) 
 
Defendant William J. Ford appeals from an order awarding victim 
restitution.  He contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct the April 
6, 2012, hearing prescribing the amount of restitution he owed because his term of 
probation — including the condition of restitution — had expired one week 
earlier.  For support, defendant relies on Penal Code section 1203.3, subdivision 
(b)(5), which provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to prohibit 
the court from modifying the dollar amount of a restitution order pursuant to 
subdivision (f) of Section 1202.4 at any time during the term of the probation.”  
(Italics added.)  The People maintain that the trial court retained jurisdiction to 
award full restitution in the amount of the victim‟s loss, even after the term of 
probation expired.  They rely on Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f), which 
requires the court to “order full restitution unless it finds compelling and 
extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states them on the record,” and on 
Penal Code section 1202.46, which provides that “when the economic losses of a 
 
2 
 
victim cannot be ascertained at the time of sentencing pursuant to subdivision (f) 
of Section 1202.4, the court shall retain jurisdiction over a person subject to a 
restitution order for purposes of imposing or modifying restitution until such time 
as the losses may be determined.”   
We need not decide whether a trial court retains jurisdiction to modify the 
amount of restitution once a defendant‟s term of probation has expired.  So long as 
a court has subject matter jurisdiction — and both parties agree the trial court had 
it here — then a party seeking or consenting to action beyond the court‟s power 
may be estopped from complaining that the resulting action exceeds a court‟s 
jurisdiction.  (Simmons v. Ghaderi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 570, 584.)  By agreeing to a 
continuance of the restitution hearing to a date after his probationary term expired, 
defendant implied his consent to the court‟s continued exercise of jurisdiction.  He 
is therefore estopped from challenging it.  For this reason, we affirm the judgment 
of the Court of Appeal.   
I.  BACKGROUND 
In February 2008, defendant severely injured Elaine Jennings in a hit-and-
run accident.  He was charged with felony hit and run, enhanced for personal 
infliction of great bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 
§§ 667.5, subd. (c)(8), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8), 12022.7, subd. (a)), and driving while 
his license was suspended or revoked (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)).  On 
August 21, 2008, defendant pleaded no contest in a negotiated disposition to 
felony hit and run in exchange for dismissal of the other charges, a grant of 
probation, and the option to have his conviction reduced to a misdemeanor if he 
successfully completed probation.  The plea agreement provided that he would pay 
“restitution directly to any victim(s).”   
At sentencing on October 9, 2008, defendant was placed on probation for 
three years, ordered to serve six months in jail, and directed to pay various fines 
 
3 
 
and restitution amounting to $12,465.88 for the victim‟s medical expenses.  At 
defendant‟s request, the court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of 
additional restitution, including lost wages.1   
On May 7, 2010, the probation office determined the appropriate amount of 
victim restitution to be $211,000.  Defendant requested a hearing.  The hearing 
was originally scheduled for September 24, 2010, but was continued many times, 
sometimes at defendant‟s explicit request, and always with defendant‟s consent.  
Probation was extended three times, also with defendant‟s consent.  The final 
extension was to March 30, 2012.     
At the restitution hearing on January 27, 2012, Jennings testified that she 
had needed considerable time to gather information supporting her claim of lost 
income, given that she could not have known that such documentation would be 
required at the time the business was operating.  Based on a full review of her 
records, she estimated that she had suffered losses of $275,017.  The trial court 
found that Jennings had made a prima facie case for restitution in the amount of 
$275,017, and granted the defense request for more time to rebut the justification 
for that amount.     
The restitution hearing was scheduled to resume on March 1, 2012.  
Because a defense witness failed to comply with a subpoena, the restitution 
hearing was continued to March 8 and then to March 27, 2012.  On March 27, the 
deputy district attorney assigned to the case advised that she was unavailable to 
proceed that afternoon because she was conducting a preliminary hearing in 
another courtroom.  Defendant agreed to continue the matter to April 6, 2012.  But 
                                              
1  
Jennings and her husband owned a catering company.  Her injuries, 
coupled with the assistance she needed from her husband to perform virtually all 
of the tasks of daily living, “severely curtailed [their] ability to conduct [their] 
business for the next several months.”   
 
4 
 
on April 6, defense counsel made a special appearance contesting the court‟s 
jurisdiction to order additional restitution on the ground that defendant‟s term of 
probation had expired one week earlier.  After setting a briefing schedule on the 
jurisdictional issue, the court conducted a hearing on May 17, 2012, at which it 
determined that jurisdiction existed to order the full amount of restitution.  The 
court then confirmed the restitution amount was $275,017.  The court‟s order of 
restitution was appealable, as it was made after judgment and affected defendant‟s 
substantial rights.  (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (f), 1237, subd. (b).)    
The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that its earlier decision in People v. 
Bufford (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 966 had held that Penal Code sections 1202.4, 
subdivision (f) and 1202.46 “mean exactly what they say and that the completion 
of a prison term was irrelevant to the court‟s ability to exercise jurisdiction. . . .  
The same reasoning applies here, and the court retained jurisdiction to award 
additional restitution without regard to the expiration of Ford‟s probation.”   
We granted review.   
II.  DISCUSSION 
Although the term “jurisdiction” is sometimes used as if it had a single 
meaning, we have long recognized two different ways in which a court may lack 
jurisdiction.  (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 
653, 660 (American Contractors).)  A court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental 
sense when it has no authority at all over the subject matter or the parties, or when 
it lacks any power to hear or determine the case.  (Abelleira v. District Court of 
Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 288.)  If a court lacks such “ „fundamental‟ ” 
jurisdiction, its ruling is void.  (People v. Lara (2010) 48 Cal.4th 216, 225.)  A 
claim based on a lack of fundamental jurisdiction may be raised for the first time 
on appeal.  (Ibid.)   
 
5 
 
Even when a court has fundamental jurisdiction, however, the Constitution, 
a statute, or relevant case law may constrain the court to act only in a particular 
manner, or subject to certain limitations.  (Burtnett v. King (1949) 33 Cal.2d 805, 
807; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 291.)  In  
American Contractors, supra, 33 Cal.4th 653, 660-662, for example, we explained 
that a court with fundamental jurisdiction over the parties nonetheless lacked the 
power to enter a judgment forfeiting a bail bond prior to the end of the period 
allowed for the surety to make an appearance.  When a trial court has fundamental 
jurisdiction but fails to act in the manner prescribed, it is said to have acted “in 
excess of its jurisdiction.”  (Id. at p. 661.)  Because an ordinary act in excess of 
jurisdiction does not negate a court‟s fundamental jurisdiction to hear the matter 
altogether (2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Jurisdiction, § 285, p. 891), 
such a ruling is treated as valid until set aside.  (People v. Tindall (2000) 24 
Cal.4th 767, 776, fn. 6.)  A party may be precluded from seeking to set aside such 
a ruling because of waiver, estoppel, or the passage of time.  (Ibid.)     
Given the importance of distinguishing between lack of fundamental 
jurisdiction and ordinary acts in excess of jurisdiction, California courts have 
sought to draw the distinction in a variety of settings.  (See 2 Witkin, Cal. 
Procedure, supra, Jurisdiction, § 13, pp. 585-588.)  As pertinent here — and as 
defendant concedes — it is well settled that the expiration of a probationary period 
does not terminate a court‟s fundamental jurisdiction.  (In re Bakke (1986) 42 
Cal.3d 84, 89 (Bakke).)  But we need not decide whether expiration of the 
probationary period rendered the trial court‟s award of restitution an act in excess 
of jurisdiction.  Despite the probationary period‟s expiration, defendant is 
estopped from challenging the trial court‟s jurisdiction to award restitution.   
The doctrine of estoppel to contest jurisdiction may apply to “ „a party who 
seeks or consents to action beyond the court‟s power as defined by statute or 
 
6 
 
decisional rule‟ ” in the period after probation has terminated.  (Bakke, supra, 42 
Cal.3d at p. 89.)  Whether the party should be estopped depends on a weighing of 
equities in the particular case, the effect of estoppel on the functioning of the 
courts, and considerations of public policy.  (In re Griffin (1967) 67 Cal.2d 343, 
348 (Griffin).)  In Griffin, for example, we held that the habeas corpus petitioner 
was estopped from challenging an order revoking probation.  While the petitioner 
argued that the order was in excess of jurisdiction, he had himself requested a 
continuance of the probation revocation hearing to a date beyond the expiration of 
his probationary term.  (Id. at pp. 347-349; see id. at p. 348 [“[a] litigant who has 
stipulated to a procedure in excess of jurisdiction may be estopped to question it 
when „To hold otherwise would permit the parties to trifle with the courts‟ ”].)   
We reached a similar conclusion in Bakke, supra, 42 Cal.3d 84.  The trial 
court imposed a jail term as a condition of probation but stayed execution of the 
jail term pending appeal at the habeas corpus petitioner‟s request.  When the 
probationary term expired before the appeal could be resolved, the petitioner 
contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order execution of the jail term.  
We followed the reasoning of Griffin and held that the petitioner was estopped 
from objecting to the execution of the jail term, despite the fact his probation had 
already terminated.  (Bakke, at p. 89; see People v. Jackson (2005) 134 
Cal.App.4th 929, 932-933 [defendant was estopped from challenging court‟s 
jurisdiction to impose a probationary term exceeding the statutory maximum by 
requesting the extension].)   
Defendant in this case did not seek the continuance.  But estoppel can also 
apply to a party who merely consents to a continuance to a date beyond the court‟s 
ordinary authority to act.  (Bakke, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 89.)  We have long 
recognized that a failure to object can constitute implied consent to an act in 
excess of the court‟s jurisdiction.  (People v. Toro (1989) 47 Cal.3d 966, 973 
 
7 
 
[defendant who fails to object to instructions on a lesser related offense “impliedly 
consents” to the court‟s jurisdiction to convict him of the uncharged offense]; 
Harrington v. Superior Court (1924) 194 Cal. 185, 188 [“if the court has 
jurisdiction of the subject matter, . . . a party may voluntarily submit himself to the 
jurisdiction of the court, or may, by failing to seasonably object thereto, waive his 
right to question jurisdiction” (italics added)]; see generally Barsamyan v. 
Appellate Division of Superior Court (2008) 44 Cal.4th 960, 970 [“ „Implied 
consent is the failure to object‟ ”].)  We have also held that a probationer‟s 
conduct may signify consent to the continuance of a proceeding, even if the 
continuance extends the proceedings beyond the period during which a statute 
requires a court to act.  (Bakke, at p. 89.)  In the circumstances here, where 
defendant‟s own requests played a role in delaying the proceedings and defendant 
did not object to a continuance of the restitution hearing to a date beyond his 
probationary term, he can be understood to have consented to the continuance.   
Defendant has not shown that an objection to the proposed date would have 
been futile.  (See Mundy v. Lenc (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.)  Rather, he 
had the opportunity to demand a timely hearing, yet failed to do so.  In particular, 
he could have insisted on such a hearing at the proceeding on March 27, 2012.  
Once the deputy district attorney in this case announced her unavailability, the 
hearing could still have gone forward while defendant‟s probation remained in 
force, either with another deputy that same day or with the assigned deputy on any 
of the days remaining before defendant‟s probation expired three days later.  
Alternatively, with defendant‟s consent, the hearing could have been continued to 
a date beyond the expiration of his probationary term.  By failing to object to the 
proposed continuance beyond the expiration of the probationary term, defendant 
effectively signaled his consent to it.  (People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty 
Co., Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1150 [“ „A party cannot sit idly by and 
 
8 
 
permit action to be taken and later say that it had not consented‟ ”]; see People v. 
Ingersoll (1913) 21 Cal.App. 763, 764.)   
Accordingly, we find that defendant‟s consent to the court‟s continued 
exercise of jurisdiction estops him from challenging it here.  To hold otherwise 
would penalize the trial court, the People, and the victim for attempting to 
accommodate defendant‟s requests for more documentation.  Defendant obtained 
the benefit of the dismissal of allegations that he personally inflicted great bodily 
injury and committed a serious and violent felony by entering a no contest plea to 
felony hit and run and by agreeing to pay restitution to the victim.  (Griffin, supra, 
67 Cal.2d at p. 348.)  By the time of the hearing scheduled for March 27, 2012, the 
trial court had already found a prima facie case supporting the amount of 
restitution requested by the victim.  (See People v. Sy (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 44, 
63.)  The purpose of the continued hearing, as the trial court explained, was to 
enable the defense to present its rebuttal.  Having insisted on the opportunity for 
rebuttal — and having obtained the benefit of his plea bargain and agreeing to 
continue the hearing to a date certain to present that rebuttal — defendant cannot 
be heard to complain that the trial court thereby lost jurisdiction when it set a 
hearing to consider his rebuttal on the agreed-upon date.   
It is true that courts may decline to recognize estoppel in narrow 
circumstances.  Estoppel is not appropriate when allowing a deviation from the 
law in a particular case would cause confusion in the processing of cases by 
different litigants or when it would thwart public policy.  (Griffin, supra, 67 
Cal.2d at p. 348.)  In People v. Mendez (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1773, for example, 
the Court of Appeal declined to estop the Attorney General from challenging a 
stipulation entered into by the district attorney under a significant misapprehension 
of law, when the stipulation authorized privileges “exceeding those granted by the 
Legislature or the Governor‟s pardon, and not available to any other similarly 
 
9 
 
situated person.”  (Id. at p. 1784.)  By contrast, recognizing estoppel in these 
circumstances would not affect the resolution of other cases or raise the prospect 
of differential treatment.  And in People v. Blakeman (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 596, 
the Court of Appeal declined to estop a defendant probationer from challenging a 
banishment condition, even though he himself had proposed the banishment, 
because such a condition was proscribed by the fundamental policy that one 
political division not be allowed to “dump” undesirable persons on another.  (Id. at 
p. 598.)  In this case, though, defendant identifies no policy, substantive or 
procedural, that would preclude estoppel.  (Griffin, at p. 348.)  Instead, estopping 
defendant from challenging the jurisdiction of the court to make an award of full 
restitution in these circumstances — under a schedule to which defendant agreed 
— promotes the proper functioning of the courts, advances the goals of the 
probation system, and furthers the objective of ensuring victims of crime receive 
the restitution they are due.    
Defendant does not claim that he was prejudiced in any way by a restitution 
hearing that postdated the end of his probationary term.  Nor does he point to any 
evidence in the record that the People or the victim unreasonably delayed the 
calculation of restitution.  To the contrary:  the victim testified that defendant 
inflicted multiple, severe injuries preventing her and her husband from focusing on 
their business for a period of months, and that she faced major challenges in 
reconstructing her records with her accountant even after her recovery, as her 
attention was “really overtaxed as it is” by her ongoing responsibilities at her 
business.  In this case, the doctrine of estoppel therefore prevents defendant from 
complaining that the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction when it fixed the 
amount of restitution to the victim of his crime after expiration of the probationary 
term.       
 
10 
 
 
III.  DISPOSITION 
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
CUÉLLAR, J. 
 
WE CONCUR: 
 
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J. 
WERDEGAR, J. 
CHIN, J. 
CORRIGAN, J. 
LIU, J. 
KRUGER, J.
 
1 
 
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion People v. Ford 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion 
Original Appeal 
Original Proceeding 
Review Granted XXX 217 Cal.App.4th 1354 
Rehearing Granted 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Opinion No. S212940 
Date Filed: May 28, 2015 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court: Superior 
County: Sonoma 
Judge: Bradford J. DeMeo 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Counsel: 
 
Law Offices of Andrian & Gallenson and Jane Gaskell for Plaintiff and Appellant. 
 
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, 
Assistant Attorney General, Seth K. Schalit, Catherine McBrien, Eric D. Share and Huy T. Luong, Deputy 
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
Jane Gaskell 
Law Offices of Andrian & Gallenson 
1100 Mendocino Avenue 
Santa Rosa, CA  95401 
(707) 527-9381 
 
Huy T. Luong 
Deputy Attorney General 
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 
San Francisco, CA  94102-7004 
(415) 703-5941