People v. Orozco CA1/3

Filed 11/20/23 P. v. Orozco CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A164946 v. FRANCISCO JAVIER OROZCO, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR7205614) Defendant and Appellant.

In 2019, Francisco Javier Orozco pled no contest to misdemeanor battery. (Pen. Code, § 242, undesignated statutory references are to this code.) The trial court placed him on probation for three years and reserved as to victim restitution. In 2022, the court ordered Orozco to pay $1,232.81 in restitution. On appeal, he argues the court lacked jurisdiction to order restitution because his probation had already terminated pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.), reducing misdemeanor probation terms to one year. (§ 1203a, subd. (a), as amended by Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 1.) We affirm. BACKGROUND Orozco was charged with two counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury after he and three others attacked two victims. (§ 245, subd. (a)(4).) As part of a negotiated disposition, he pled no contest to misdemeanor battery, and his remaining counts were dismissed. At a 1

sentencing hearing, the prosecutor noted — and defense counsel confirmed — the agreed-upon disposition would include three years of probation and a reservation as to restitution. Accordingly, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence, placed Orozco on three years of probation — beginning July 8, 2019 — and ordered “Restitution Reserved.” In January 2021, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1950, reducing the maximum probation term for misdemeanors to one year with certain exceptions that are inapplicable here. (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 1; § 1203.1, subds. (a), (l).) That November, the California Victim Compensation Board submitted a restitution request in the amount of $1,178.47, and the prosecution asked the trial court to order Orozco to pay full restitution. Orozco objected, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to order restitution because his probation had already terminated as a matter of law under Assembly Bill No. 1950. The court disagreed, ordered him to pay $1,232.81 in restitution, and converted the amount to a civil judgment. DISCUSSION Orozco argues the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by fixing the amount of victim restitution after his probation term expired due to the enactment of Assembly Bill No. 1950.1 Having independently reviewed this question of statutory interpretation, we disagree. (People v. Zuniga (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 870, 874 (Zuniga).) Victims have a constitutional right to obtain restitution for losses they suffer from the persons convicted of criminal offenses. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(13)(A).) Courts must order restitution “from the convicted