Court Opinion

ID: 9946562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 21:02:29.634475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:54.219896
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/29/24 P. v. Escobar CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION ONE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                            B327727

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Los Angeles County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. VA149861)
           v.

 MARK ANTHONY ESCOBAR,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Scott R. Herin, Judge. Affirmed.
      Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy
Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      Defendant Mark Anthony Escobar appeals from an
order imposing victim restitution pursuant to Penal Code
section 1202.4, subdivision (f).1 He contends that the court
lacked jurisdiction to make the order because his probation
term had previously expired. We conclude that even if the
court improperly extended defendant’s probation beyond
the statutory maximum term, the court had jurisdiction to
determine the amount of restitution and make the challenged
order. We therefore affirm.

        FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
       In 2018, the district attorney’s office charged defendant
with felony reckless driving on a highway causing injury to R.L.
(Veh. Code, §§ 23103, subd. (a), 23105 (count 1)), misdemeanor
reckless driving on a highway causing injury to K.B. (Veh. Code,
§§ 23103, subd. (a), 23104, subd. (a) (count 2)), and driving the
wrong way on a divided highway causing injury to R.L. (Veh.
Code, § 21651, subd. (c) (count 3)).
       On February 25, 2019, defendant pleaded no contest
to count 3 pursuant to a plea agreement. The court found him
guilty of the charge and, in accordance with the agreement,
suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on three years
probation on the conditions, among others, that he serve 90 days
in jail and make restitution to the victims in an amount to be
determined at a hearing. The court dismissed the two remaining
counts. Defendant acknowledged, however, that his restitution
obligation would require restitution for the victims of all three
counts alleged. (See § 1192.3, subd. (b).)

     1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                2
        On July 31, 2019, the court summarily revoked defendant’s
probation due to his failure to report to the probation
department. On December 18, 2019, the court reinstated
probation on the same terms and conditions.2
        In 2020, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1950
(2019–2020 Reg. Sess.), which amended section 1203.1 to limit
periods of felony probation to two years, with some exceptions not
applicable here. (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2; see § 1203.1, subds. (a)
& (l).)
        During a hearing held on February 2, 2021, the court
considered the probation department’s recommendation that
the court again revoke defendant’s probation because he had not
reported to the department since September 2020. Defendant
and his counsel stipulated to extend his probation to February 1,
2022. The court accepted the stipulation and stated that
“defendant remains on probation upon the same terms and
conditions.”
        On April 29, 2021, the court summarily revoked
defendant’s probation when defendant failed to appear for
a progress report hearing.
        During a hearing held on July 15, 2021, a deputy district
attorney informed the court and counsel that the victim
restitution amounts are $21,589 for K.B. and $4,736 for R.L.
Neither victim was present at the hearing. Defendant, with his
counsel joining, stipulated to pay these amounts. The court then
reinstated defendant on probation and ordered him to pay the
stipulated restitution.

      2 Defendant calculates the period from July 31, 2019 to
December 18, 2019, during which his probation was tolled, to be
110 days. It is 140 days.

                                  3
       On November 15, 2021, defendant admitted that he
had violated probation by failing to report to the probation
department in October 2021. The court revoked his probation
and, upon defendant’s agreement to extend his probation to
November 15, 2022, reinstated his probation with an additional
condition that he complete a drug treatment program during that
time.
       At a hearing held on November 9, 2022—six days before
the scheduled probation expiration date—the court found
that defendant had completed his drug treatment program.
Defendant’s counsel indicated that defendant “is in position to
pay” the restitution amount and needed to know “where to pay”
it. After some colloquy among the court and counsel, defendant
and counsel agreed that probation would be extended to
December 19, 2022, by which time defendant would produce
cashier’s checks payable to the victims, and the deputy district
attorney would “make every effort” to provide defendant with
the victims’ addresses.
       At a hearing held on December 15, 2022, defendant paid
K.B. the restitution due him. R.L., however, asserted that he
never agreed to accept the $4,736 restitution amount defendant
had stipulated to pay. According to the court, the deputy district
attorney who had stated that amount in July 2021 apparently
made “a mistake.” A deputy district attorney conceded that “the
People blew it,” and argued that the prosecutor’s error cannot be
used to deny R.L. his right to restitution. The court agreed, and
set a restitution hearing as to R.L.’s claim to take place the next
day.
       At the restitution hearing on December 16, 2022, R.L.
testified and submitted evidence of medical expenses, lost

                                 4
income, and business rental expenses. He sought a total
of $33,013.85. After hearing arguments, the court ordered
defendant to pay restitution to R.L. in the amount of $16,699.85.
The court further ordered that the restitution be enforceable as
a civil judgment, then terminated defendant’s probation.
       Defendant timely appealed.

                          DISCUSSION
       Defendant contends that his probation terminated as a
matter of law at some point prior to the court’s December 16,
2022 restitution hearing and, therefore, the court did not have
jurisdiction to issue the restitution order. We disagree.
       On February 25, 2019, the court placed defendant on
probation for a three-year term, which was then set to expire
on February 24, 2022. The intervening enactment of Assembly
Bill No. 1950, however, effectively shortened defendant’s
probation term by one year. (See Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2,
amending § 1203.1, subd. (a); People v. Prudholme (2023) 14
Cal.5th 961, 979 [Assembly Bill No. 1950 applies to persons who
were serving a term of probation when the amendment became
effective].) Thus, as of January 1, 2021, when Assembly Bill
No. 1950 went into effect, defendant’s probation, if not tolled or
extended, would have been set to expire on February 24, 2021.
       Defendant does not dispute that his probation term was
tolled and extended during two periods while his probation had
been revoked. (§ 1203.2, subd. (a).) Even with these extensions,
however, he contends that, due to the reduction of his probation
term under Assembly Bill No. 1950, his probation term expired

                                 5
prior to the December 16, 2022 restitution hearing.3 We need
not decide this question, however, because even if defendant’s
probation had terminated prior to the court’s restitution hearing,
the court still had jurisdiction to hold that hearing and determine
the amount of restitution.
       Under our state constitution, the victim of a crime is
entitled to restitution, which the court shall order “from the
convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence
or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss.”
(Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(B).) The Legislature
implemented this constitutional mandate by enacting
section 1202.4, which provides that, except for situations not
present here, “in every case in which a victim has suffered
economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct, the court
shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim
or victims in an amount established by court order, based on
the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other
showing to the court.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f).)
       Section 1202.4 further provides that if “the amount of loss
cannot be ascertained at the time of sentencing, the restitution
order shall include a provision that the amount shall be
determined at the direction of the court.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (f).)
In that situation, section 1202.46 provides that “the court shall
retain jurisdiction over a person subject to a restitution order

      3 Defendant did not assert in the trial court that his
probation terminated on a particular date or at all prior to the
December 16, 2022 restitution hearing. On appeal, he indicates
at one point that his probation terminated on August 30, 2021.
At another point, he asserts that his “probation should have
terminated by law no later than November 9, 2022.”

                                 6
for purposes of imposing or modifying restitution until such time
as the losses may be determined.” (§ 1202.46.) This statute thus
“extends the court’s jurisdiction to set the amount” of restitution
without regard to whether the defendant’s probationary term
has expired. (People v. McCune (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 648, 652,
review granted Oct. 26, 2022, S276303; accord, People v. Zuniga
(2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 870, 876 [under section 1202.46, trial
court retained jurisdiction to determine restitution amount
after probation expired].) By preserving the court’s jurisdiction
for this purpose, section 1202.46 “serves the constitutional
mandate to ensure full victim restitution.” (McCune, supra,
at p. 653.)4
       Defendant contends that the foregoing analysis does not
apply because section 1202.46 extends jurisdiction to impose
restitution “until such time as the losses may be determined,”
and, he argues, the losses had been determined when he
stipulated to restitution amounts in July 2021. We disagree.
       The “victims’ right to restitution is a constitutional one,
and . . . cannot be bargained away or limited by the prosecution.”
(People v. Pierce (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1337; see People v.
Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1226 [“[v]ictim restitution
may not be bargained away by the People”]; People v. Valdez
(1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1202–1203 [victim restitution is
not subject to negotiation between the prosecution and defense,
and cannot be limited by the prosecution].) When the prosecutor
proffered the $4,736 amount as R.L.’s restitution and defendant

      4 In McCune, the Supreme Court is currently considering
the question whether a trial court has jurisdiction to set the
amount of victim restitution after terminating defendant’s
probation pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1950.

                                 7
stipulated to that amount, they effectively bargained away
and limited R.L.’s right to restitution. Because the stipulation
would have had the effect of denying R.L. his constitutional and
statutory right to restitution, the trial court correctly determined
it was invalid. R.L.’s “losses,” therefore, were not determined by
the July 2021 stipulation; they were determined at the hearing
held December 16, 2022. The court had jurisdiction to hold that
hearing and make that determination under section 1202.46.
       Defendant’s reliance on People v. Sem (2014) 229
Cal.App.4th 1176 and People v. Medeiros (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th
1260 is misplaced. In Sem and Medeiros, the trial courts
effectively extended the defendants’ probation terms beyond
the maximum allowed by statute by either revoking and then
reinstating probation (in Medeiros) or revoking probation
but postponing the decision whether to reinstate or terminate
probation “until long after the expiration of the probationary
period” (in Sem). (Sem, supra, at p. 1180.) Neither case involved
the application of section 1202.46 or the question whether the
court has jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution
after probation is terminated.

                                 8
                       DISPOSITION
    The December 16, 2022 order determining the restitution
amount is affirmed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                       ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur:

                BENDIX, J.

                WEINGART, J.

                              9