People v. Rice CA2/6

Filed 4/18/16 P. v. Rice CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B266899 (Super. Ct. No. 2009038873) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JOHN RICE,

Defendant and Appellant.

John Rice appeals from a judgment after an order revoking his postrelease community supervision (PRCS). (Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.)1 He contends the revocation process violated his right to due process because: he was not provided with counsel at his probable cause hearing before the supervising agency; was not brought before the court for arraignment within 10 days of arrest; did not have a probable cause hearing before the court within 15 days of arrest; and a probation officer asked him to waive his rights before the revocation petition was filed. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 2012, Rice was convicted after a plea of guilty to false personation. (§ 529.) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted formal probation.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

Rice violated the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked probation and sentenced him to a prison term. Rice was released in 2012 under PRCS following realignment. The Ventura County Probation Department is his supervising agency. As a condition of release, he agreed to maintain contact with the probation department and obey all laws, among other things. Rice also agreed the probation department could, without a court hearing, order “flash incarceration” in a county jail for up to 10 days if he violated the conditions of his release. (§ 3453, subd. (q).) Following a release from jail in March 2015, Rice did not report to the probation department. On July 7, a police officer detained Rice on an outstanding warrant and found a methamphetamine pipe with burnt residue in his pocket. He was arrested for a new charge (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)) and for violating the terms of his PRCS. Two days after his arrest, Rice appeared with counsel for arraignment. The court ordered that he be released from jail upon completion of his flash incarceration period. On the same day, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza met with Rice. Meza advised Rice in writing that he had the right to written notice of the alleged violations, the right to an administrative hearing within two days, and the right at that hearing to speak on his own behalf and present letters and documents. Simultaneously, Meza conducted an administrative probable cause hearing, at which Meza concluded there was probable cause to believe that Rice violated the terms of release by failing to report to the probation department and failing to obey all laws. Rice acknowledged receipt of a “PROS Hold” form that identified the alleged violations. It gave notice of a court hearing set for 16 days after Rice’s arrest. Meza advised Rice of his right to a formal revocation hearing at which he would have the right to be represented by an attorney, the right to call and confront witnesses, and the right to testify or remain silent. The advisement was memorialized in a “Postrelease Community Supervision Waivers of Rights and Admission Form.” Rice acknowledged receipt of the form and refused to waive his rights.