Does a defendant have to prove that the trial court retained jurisdiction over defendant after the expiration of her probationary period?

Further, defendant has not shown that the trial court retained jurisdiction over defendant, after the expiration of her probationary period in February 2009, for the purpose of modifying her 365-day jail term after it was served. "During the probationary period, the court retains jurisdiction over the defendant [citation] . . . ." (People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, 1092-1093.) Thus, "[a] probation order may be revoked or modified only during the term of probation. [Citation.]" (People v. Daoud (1976) 16 Cal.3d 879, 882.) After the probationary period expires, "a court cannot revive lapsed jurisdiction by the simple expedient of issuing an order nunc pro tunc. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) We also note that defendant has not asserted that she sought relief from her guilty plea under section 1203.4. The provisions of section 1203.4 are therefore irrelevant in determining whether the trial court retained jurisdiction after expiration of the probationary period.

Moreover, the decisions on which defendant relies, People v. Culpepper (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1134 (Culpepper) and In re Griffin (1967) 67 Cal.2d 343 (Griffin), do not

Page 14