In People v. Ham (1975) 44 Cal. App. 3d 288, the court dealt with a situation similar to the one raised by appellant. The defendant was taken into custody on a probation violation prior to the expiration of his probationary term. However, it was only after the expiration of that term that the court formally revoked probation and sentenced the defendant to state prison. On appeal the defendant claimed the court lost jurisdiction to revoke probation and to sentence him to prison, since these judicial acts occurred after his term of probation had expired. The defendant had been arrested on other charges involving driving while intoxicated and assault on an officer. When defendant appeared on March 28, 1974 (which was approximately one week before the expiration of his term of probation), his defense counsel requested a continuance of the probation revocation proceedings until the trial on the new offenses was concluded. The court set an evidentiary hearing for April 18, 1974, which at defendant's request was continued until May 29, 1974 (more than a month after defendant's term of probation would have expired). At the hearing defendant was found to be in violation of probation and sentenced to prison. In rejecting the defendant's contention that the court lost jurisdiction, by virtue of the expiration of his term of probation, the court said: "Whatever the label placed on the March 28 proceedings, summary revocation was what the court accomplished. In brief, we hold that jurisdiction to sentence defendant attached as soon as defendant was brought before the court on the probation revocation charge and the court found probable cause to believe that defendant was in violation.Finally, even if a defendant charged with a probation violation must be given an opportunity to have a full evidentiary hearing before probation time elapses, defendant in this case by seeking a continuance beyond the end of the probationary term waived his right to insist on a hearing within the time limits and is now estopped to claim that the court was without jurisdiction to revoke probation and sentence defendant to prison." ( People v. Ham, supra, 44 Cal. App. 3d at p. 294.)