People v. Escobar CA2/1

Filed 2/29/24 P. v. Escobar CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B327727

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA149861) v.

MARK ANTHONY ESCOBAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Scott R. Herin, Judge. Affirmed. Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Mark Anthony Escobar appeals from an order imposing victim restitution pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f).1 He contends that the court lacked jurisdiction to make the order because his probation term had previously expired. We conclude that even if the court improperly extended defendant’s probation beyond the statutory maximum term, the court had jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution and make the challenged order. We therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In 2018, the district attorney’s office charged defendant with felony reckless driving on a highway causing injury to R.L. (Veh. Code, §§ 23103, subd. (a), 23105 (count 1)), misdemeanor reckless driving on a highway causing injury to K.B. (Veh. Code, §§ 23103, subd. (a), 23104, subd. (a) (count 2)), and driving the wrong way on a divided highway causing injury to R.L. (Veh. Code, § 21651, subd. (c) (count 3)). On February 25, 2019, defendant pleaded no contest to count 3 pursuant to a plea agreement. The court found him guilty of the charge and, in accordance with the agreement, suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on three years probation on the conditions, among others, that he serve 90 days in jail and make restitution to the victims in an amount to be determined at a hearing. The court dismissed the two remaining counts. Defendant acknowledged, however, that his restitution obligation would require restitution for the victims of all three counts alleged. (See § 1192.3, subd. (b).)