11 California opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2020(Jackson, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 932 [“the 1999 extension is beyond challenge at this time, as appellant did not timely appeal from that order”].) 15 “By agreeing to a continuance of the restitution hearing to a date after his probationary term expired, defendant impliedly gave his consent to the court’s continued exercise of jurisdiction.” (Ibid.) 2. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Bakkegreen1 sentence2015Indeed, we must conclude that the trial court did have subject matter jurisdiction. ( Ford, supra, 64 Cal.4th 282 [ 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 919 , 349 P.3d 98, 101 ] [a trial court “lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental sense when it has no authority at all over the subject matter,” and “it is well settled that the expiration of a probationary period does not terminate a court’s fundamental jurisdiction”]; see also In re Bakke (1986) 42 Cal.3d 84, 89 [neither the probation statutes nor the cases applying them support a holding that expiration of the probationary period terminates the court’s jurisdiction | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Ghaderigreen2 sentences2015(Simmons v. Ghaderi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 570, 584 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 , 187 P.3d 934 ].) By agreeing to a continuance of the restitution hearing to a date after his probationary term expired, defendant impliedly gave his consent to the court’s continued exercise of jurisdiction. 2015(Simmons v. Ghaderi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 570, 584 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 , 187 P.3d 934 ].) By agreeing to a continuance of the restitution hearing to a date after his probationary term expired, defendant impliedly gave his consent to the court’s continued exercise of jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ford
green
2 sentences2024(People v. Ford (2015) 61 Cal.4th 282, 284 .) We had no occasion to decide this issue in Ford, however, because we found that the defendant there had impliedly consented to the court’s authority by agreeing to a continuance of the restitution hearing to a date after his probationary term expired. 2022(Bakke, at 10 p. 89.) In the circumstances here, where defendant’s own requests played a role in delaying the proceedings and defendant did not object to a continuance of the restitution hearing to a date beyond his probationary term, he can be understood to have consented to the continuance.” ( Ford, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 287–288.) Ford controls this case. | 4 | 2015–2024 |
Hilton v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2015(Id. at p. 288.) The court stated: “In the circumstances here, where defendant’s own requests played a role in delaying the proceedings and defendant did not object to a continuance of the restitution hearing to a date beyond his probationary term, he can be understood to have consented to the continuance.” (Ibid.) The Second Appellate District recently found a trial court lacked jurisdiction to order restitution after probation expired in Hilton v. Superior Court (2014) 239 Cal.App.4th 766 [ 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 309 ] (Hilton). 2 In that case, the defendant pled no contest to driving under the inf 2015(Id. at p. 288.) The court stated: “In the circumstances here, where defendant’s own requests played a role in delaying the proceedings and defendant did not object to a continuance of the restitution hearing to a date beyond his probationary term, he can be understood to have consented to the continuance.” (Ibid.) The Second Appellate District recently found a trial court lacked jurisdiction to order restitution after probation expired in Hilton v. Superior Court (2014) 239 Cal.App.4th 766 [ 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 309 ] (Hilton). 2 In that case, the defendant pled no contest to driving under the inf | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Contreras
green
1 sentence2022(See People v. Contreras (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1296 , 1306–1307 [rejecting ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on continuance to obtain clarification on sentencing information].) As to the second prong of the analysis, Romero has not convinced us that Castillo’s failure to advise her or object to the continuance of the restitution hearing was prejudicial. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Marsden
green
1 sentence2020Defense counsel requested that the sentencing and the restitution hearing be 3 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 . 3. conducted at the same time. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Ramirez
green
2 sentences2016But estoppel can also apply to a party who merely consents to a continuance to a date beyond the court’s ordinary authority to act.” (Id. at p. 288.) “In the circumstances here, where defendant’s own requests played a role in delaying the proceedings and defendant did not object to a continuance of the restitution hearing to a date beyond his probationary term, he can be understood to have consented to the continuance.” (Ibid.) In Ramirez, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th 1412 , the appellate court not only concluded that the defendant’s challenge to a probation modification was untimely, but that he wa 2016But estoppel can also apply to a party who merely consents to a continuance to a date beyond the court’s ordinary authority to act.” (Id. at p. 288.) “In the circumstances here, where defendant’s own requests played a role in delaying the proceedings and defendant did not object to a continuance of the restitution hearing to a date beyond his probationary term, he can be understood to have consented to the continuance.” (Ibid.) In Ramirez, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th 1412 , the appellate court not only concluded that the defendant’s challenge to a probation modification was untimely, but that he wa | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.