People v. Adams CA1/3

DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction Relying on section 1203.3, defendant contends the trial court had no jurisdiction to make the restitution awards for the two victims because it did so after her probation period expired. She also argues that section 1202.46 did not extend the court’s jurisdiction to make the awards because the victims’ losses were known for six years before the restitution amounts were set. We examine these claims below. 1. Legal Principles Article I, section 28, subdivision (b)(13), of the California Constitution establishes that victims have a right “to seek and secure restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer” and that restitution shall be ordered from every convicted wrongdoer when a victim suffers a loss, “regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed.” Section 1202.4 implements this constitutional provision (People v. Smith (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 415, 431), declaring: “It is the intent of the Legislature that a victim of crime who incurs an economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from a defendant convicted of that crime.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (a)(1).) Section 1202.4,…