People v. Eaton CA6

Filed 11/13/23 P. v. Eaton CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H050146 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 18CR07956)

v.

MICHAEL SHANE EATON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Michael Shane Eaton challenges an order for victim restitution fixing the amount only after Eaton’s probation had expired. For the reasons discussed here, we will affirm the order. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Eaton was charged with felony vandalism (Pen. Code § 594, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code § 148, subd. (a)(1)) based on damaging the doors of a parked vehicle. (We omit the details of the offense as they are not relevant to the analysis and disposition of the appeal.) After he admitted the vandalism charge, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Eaton on formal probation for three years commencing in February 2019. As a term of probation, the court ordered Eaton to pay restitution to the vandalism victim in an amount to be determined. The court found Eaton to be in violation of probation in May 2019, December 2019, and December 2020. In each instance, probation was reinstated and the court set a

new projected probation termination date. Eaton was also twice found incompetent. Criminal proceedings were suspended in July 2019 and resumed in October 2019; they were again suspended in April 2021 and resumed in December 2021 after commitment and treatment at the Department of State Hospitals. The following month, Eaton admitted a violation of probation based on a new conviction; the court reinstated probation and credited Eaton with 272 days in custody. At the same hearing, the court reduced the term of probation to two years based on Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess. [amending Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (a) to reduce the maximum felony probation term to two years, with certain exceptions not applicable here]), and the parties acknowledged that the probation department would calculate the new expiration date. On March 17, 2022, the district attorney filed a request to calendar the case for a restitution hearing, which the court set for May 9. On March 28 the district attorney notified Eaton of the May 9 restitution hearing in writing and attached the victim’s restitution request form dated March 29, 2021 along with supporting documentation, including a January 2019 estimate from an auto body shop for repairs to the victim’s vehicle. Counsel appeared at the hearing on May 9, 2022, and the court continued the matter to determine if probation had expired. At the next hearing on May 26 the probation officer informed the court that Eaton’s probation expired on March 23, 2022, per Assembly Bill No. 1950. The court then requested briefing on whether it had jurisdiction to determine the restitution amount, given that Eaton’s probation had expired two months earlier. At the final hearing on June 20, 2022, the court granted the request to set restitution: “Given that restitution was ordered originally as a condition of probation, given that the People made the request during the term of probation, given that it’s no longer a condition of probation, but it is an order of the Court and an authorized order of 2