22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T43b,facts as the original order. (Ibid.) Here, we are not persuaded by the People’s claim, unsupported by analogous legal authority, that the probation officer’s “observation . . . constituted a change in circumstances.” To the contrary, under similar circumstances, our Supreme Court held that a trial court was “without jurisdiction” to extend probation upon a probation officer’s request. (In re Clark (1959) 51 Cal.2d 838, 840.) The Supreme Court concluded that “no factual basis” supported the change because the order modifying probation was “based upon the same facts as the original order.” (Ibid.) So too here. In the weeks following Contreras’ sentencing, no new facts arose; only the probation officer’s opinion was new. Under In re Clark, that opinion does not give the trial court jurisdiction to modify probation. As a result, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by adding the no-alcohol condition to Contreras’ probation. 3 III. We modify the judgment by striking the no-alcohol probation condition. We affirm the judgment as modified.24:T4ad,

facts as the original order. (Ibid.) Here, we are not persuaded by the People’s claim, unsupported by analogous legal authority, that the probation officer’s “observation . . . constituted a change in circumstances.” To the contrary, under similar circumstances, our Supreme Court held that a trial court was “without jurisdiction” to extend probation upon a probation officer’s request. (In re Clark (1959) 51 Cal.2d 838, 840.) The Supreme Court concluded that “no factual basis” supported the change because the order modifying probation was “based upon the same facts as the original order.” (Ibid.) So too here. In the weeks following Contreras’ sentencing, no new facts arose; only the probation officer’s opinion was new. Under In re Clark, that opinion does not give the trial court jurisdiction to modify probation. As a result, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by adding the no-alcohol condition to Contreras’ probation.

III.

We modify the judgment by striking the no-alcohol probation condition. We affirm the judgment as modified.

CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

KELETY, J.