People v. Freel CA2/6

DISCUSSION

The district attorney contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the restitution order because it did so after Freel had completed his state prison sentence. We agree. Absent exceptions not relevant here, “ ‘ “a trial court lacks jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant after execution of sentence has begun” ’ ” (People v. Littlefield (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1086, 1089 (Littlefield)), including by adjusting the amount of victim restitution owed (id. at pp. 1089-1092). If Freel believed the original restitution order required him to pay for damages for which he was not responsible, he could have challenged the order on direct appeal. He did not do so. Freel’s attempt to distinguish Littlefield is not persuasive. The Littlefield defendant claimed that restitution should be reduced because the state had not attempted to collect it for more than 15 years. (Littlefield, supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 1088.) Here, in contrast, the trial court determined that the original restitution order required Freel to pay for damages for which he was not responsible. This distinction does not undermine Littlefield’s holding: that absent an applicable exception, a court…