People v. Salgado CA 6

Filed 7/17/14 P. v. Salgado CA 6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H038981 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. FF509618)

v.

EDIE LILY SALGADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Edie Lily Salgado appeals from an order reinstating and extending her probation. She contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to do so because her maximum probationary term had already expired. Alternatively, she argues her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the extension as an act in excess of the court’s jurisdiction. The People concede the trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend Salgado’s probation, and we agree the concession is appropriate.1 We will therefore reverse the trial court’s order reinstating probation and direct the trial court to discharge Salgado from probation.

1 We therefore need not reach Salgado’s alternative argument that she received ineffective assistance of counsel.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Initial sentencing In November 2005, Salgado pleaded no contest to one count of driving under the influence with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)) and one count of felony hit and run (id., § 20001, subds. (a), (b)(1)) and admitted an allegation she personally inflicted great bodily injury on another while driving under the influence. At her sentencing hearing on January 9, 2006, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Salgado on probation for six years conditioned, in part, on serving one year in county jail. As one of several probation conditions, Salgado was ordered to pay restitution to the victim.2 On August 30, 2007, after Salgado missed a restitution payment, the trial court held a hearing on her probation status. This was not a formal revocation hearing, and Salgado did not admit violating her probation, but the trial court nonetheless revoked her probation and directed her to “keep on paying.” From September 2007 through August 2011, Salgado made regular monthly payments, many of which exceeded the minimum payment due. At each restitution hearing, however, the trial court continued Salgado in revoked probationary status. On August 16, 2011, Salgado asked the court to reinstate probation based on her consistent payment record. The court ordered Salgado to continue paying $150 per month for the next six months and to provide the probation department with a current financial history to evaluate if she could increase the payment amount. The trial court