People v. Goldberg

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J.

On June 27, 1968, defendant was found guilty of a violation of section 20001 of the Vehicle Code (felony hit and run).

[603]

Proceedings were suspended and defendant' was placed on probation for 10 years on two conditions: (1) that he make restitution through his probation officer;

1

and (2) that he not drive a motor vehicle. Pursuant to that order, defendant’s driver’s license was revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

2

In April of 1970 the department terminated the revocation and issued defendant a new license. Thereafter defendant drove an automobile.

On October 26, 1970, the trial court, on the basis of that driving, purported to revoke his probation and then reinstated the probation “on the original terms and conditions.”

On April 23, 1974, defendant applied to the trial court for a “modification” of his probation. The request was denied; he has appealed;

3

we reverse with directions.

I

We regard the order of October 26, 1970, as meaning what it said, namely that defendant was to remain on probation for the remaining eight years of the original ten-year term and that the prohibition on driving was still in force.

II

The original order granting probation was in error in two respects:

(1) A court cannot establish a term of probation longer than the maximum period of imprisonment for the offense involved. (Pen. Code, § 1203.1.) The maximum term under Vehicle Code section 20001 is five years. It follows that defendant’s probationary period expired on June 28, 1973—over a year before his request for modification.

(2) Under section 13203 of the Vehicle Code,