Filed 8/18/21 P. v. Uribe CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

HECTOR URIBE, JR.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G059300

 (Super. Ct. No. 19WF2487)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary M. 

Pohlson, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions for further proceedings.

Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Alana Cohen 

Butler and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.
2

Defendant Hector Uribe, Jr., appeals after his conviction of three counts of 

grand theft by false pretense, four counts of identity theft, and attempted petty theft by 

false pretenses. Uribe challenges the three-year probation term imposed by the trial 

court; the Attorney General concedes an amendment to Penal Code section 1203.1, 

subdivision (a), limits the period of probation under these circumstances to two years. 

We agree and remand for modification of the probation period.

FACTS

Uribe was convicted by a jury of three counts of grand theft by false 

pretense, four counts of identity theft, and attempted petty theft by false pretenses. The 

trial court suspended Uribe’s sentence and placed him on formal probation for a period of 

three years, subject to certain terms, including payment of restitution. Uribe timely 

appealed. 

DISCUSSION

Uribe limits his claim on appeal to his argument that the term of probation 

exceeds the maximum period of probation permitted when the court suspends imposition 

or execution of sentence. Effective January 1, 2021, the Legislature amended Penal Code 

section 1203.1, subdivision (a), to provide that, absent certain specified exceptions, the 

period of probation in a felony case with a suspended sentence may not exceed two years. 

Although Uribe was sentenced in 2020, he now asserts this amendment to the Penal Code 

has retroactive effect under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740. (See People v. Quinn

(2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 874 [holding the Estrada rule applied to this modification of Penal 

Code section 1203.1].) Uribe asks us to reduce the period of his probation to the new 

maximum: two years.

The Attorney General concedes the amended Penal Code section 1203.1 

applies retroactively, and we agree. However, the Attorney General argues we should 

remand the case to the trial court to adjust, modify, or strike probation terms to comply 

with the newly-amended Penal Code section 1203.1, rather than unilaterally modifying 
3

the probation period to two years. The Attorney General points to the substantial 

restitution ordered by the trial court ($16,083.82) and the possibility of a probationtolling revocation or a failure by Uribe to make his scheduled restitution payments, 

neither of which would be reflected in the appellate record. 

Were we to simply modify the probation period to two years, we might 

interfere with the trial court’s ability to manage Uribe’s probation and restitution or with 

the ability of the victims to convert any unpaid restitution amount into a civil judgment. 

Remanding to the trial court will allow the court to adjust the timing of restitution 

payments and handle other potential complications resulting from truncating the 

probation period.

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s imposition of three years of probation is vacated. The 

matter is remanded to the trial court for modification of the probation period as required 

by Penal Code section 1203.1. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

ZELON, J.*

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

MOORE, J.

*Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 

Seven, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.