Legal Opinion

Hilton v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 25, 2014No. B248654PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KITCHING, J.

INTRODUCTION

In this case, we hold a trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify a defendant’s probation to impose restitution after the defendant’s probationary term has expired. Such a modification would be erroneous as an act in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction. Moreover, to hold otherwise would subject a defendant placed on probation to a lifetime restitution obligation and there would be no end to the restitution orders trial courts could impose on such a defendant.

Our holding is based largely on In re Griffin (1967) 67 Cal.2d 343 [62 Cal.Rptr. 1, 431 P.2d…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. People v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  2. People v. HarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  3. People v. Superior Court (Zamudio)California Supreme Court · 2000
  4. People v. GiordanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  5. People v. TannerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. People v. WatersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  2. In re Jesse Barber On Habeas Corpus, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  3. In re A.R.California Court of Appeal · 2022
  4. In re Jesse BarberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  5. Kuhnel v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2022

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API