People v. Pallett CA1/3

DISCUSSION

The sole issue Pallett raises on appeal is whether the trial court had the authority to extend the end date of his probation upon reinstatement to August 12, 2024. He contends the extended end date improperly resulted in the period of probation exceeding the two-year statutory maximum term that applies under section 1203.1, subdivision (a). Reviewing de novo (People v. Ornelas (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1305, 1311 (Ornelas)), we disagree and affirm.

2 We begin by addressing the Attorney General’s assertion that Pallett forfeited this claim by failing to raise an objection in the trial court. As Pallett’s argument that the probation term exceeds the statutory maximum falls within an exception to forfeiture for claims that a sentence is unauthorized, we turn to the merits. (See People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 961–962.) Section 1203.2, subdivision (b)(1) empowers the trial court to “ ‘modify’ ” an order of probation, including “the power to extend the term of probation, up to the statutory maximum” that applies, which in this case is two years. (Ornelas, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 1310; see §§ 1203.1, subd. (a), 1203.2, subd. (b)(1).) A trial court may issue a…