Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Cookson

California Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 1991No. S015205Published

1Dissent

*1101MOSK, J.

I dissent.

The majority acknowledge that “[a] change in circumstances is required before a court has jurisdiction to extend or otherwise modify probation.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1095.) I agree. They go on to assert, quoting the Court of Appeal, that such a change in circumstances “could be found in a fact ‘not available at the time of the original order,’ namely, ‘that setting the pay schedule consistent with defendant’s ability to pay had resulted in defendant’s inability to pay full restitution as contemplated within the original period of probation.’ ” (Ibid.) Here I disagree.

Infor…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. RichardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. People v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  3. In Re PeelerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  4. In re MedinaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API