Penal Code section 186.11 permitted trial court to hold a hearing several years after defendant was sentenced in order to seize his property to ensure full restitution. Prior to Shah’s trial on charges of money laundering, the trial court froze real property assets under section 186.11. Eight years after his conviction and sentence, the court held a hearing to dispose of the frozen assets and levied the properties. Shah appealed, arguing (1) that section 186.11 should be construed to bar the trial court from levying a defendant’s property or assets at any point after sentencing, and (2) that the trial court lacked authority to conduct the section 186.11(h)(1)(A) hearing. Held: Affirmed. The Court of Appeal analyzed section 186.11 and concluded the plain language of the statute does not bar post-sentence hearings to dispose of previously frozen assets. Permitting such hearings comports with the legislative purpose of using seized assets to promote restitution. The trial court properly concluded that it remained empowered to make a levying order seizing and disposing of Shah’s property.