A trial court retains jurisdiction to order victim restitution even after a defendant’s probation term has expired. Defendant was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident in which the victim was severely injured. He was placed on probation for three years; the court retained jurisdiction over victim restitution. After the probation department notified Ford he owed the victim substantial restitution, he requested a hearing. The hearing was continued several times, finally occurring during three hearings in early 2012. At the third hearing, appellant claimed the trial court lack jurisdiction to order restitution because his probation term had by then expired. He appealed the court’s restitution order. Held: Affirmed. Article I, section 28 was added to the California Constitution to assure that victims of crime recover their losses. Penal Code section 1202.46 provides that when the losses cannot be ascertained at the time of sentencing, the court retains jurisdiction over the defendant for purposes of imposing and modifying restitution until such losses are determined. Penal Code section 1202.3, which provides the court’s jurisdiction to modify probation orders during the probation term, does not control the issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction to order victim restitution after the conclusion of probation.