People v. Brown CA2/6

Filed 4/19/16 P. v. Brown CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B267126 (Super. Ct. No. 2008046598) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

LANCE BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Lance Brown 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; a probation officer asked him to waive his rights before the revocation petition was filed; and a probation officer (rather than a judicial officer) served as the probable cause hearing officer. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 2010, Brown was convicted after a plea of guilty to being an accessory after a murder. (§ 32.) Brown admitted a prior felony conviction for robbery on behalf

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

of a gang. (§§ 211, 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court sentenced Brown to a prison term. Brown was released in 2013 under PRCS following realignment. The Ventura County Probation Department is his supervising agency. As a condition of release, he agreed to be searched without a warrant and not to possess any drug paraphernalia or any knife with a blade longer than two inches. He 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).) Probation officers searched Brown and his property on July 20, 2015. The officers found a folding knife with a three-inch blade and a marijuana pipe. They arrested him. Two days after his arrest, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza met with Brown. Meza advised Brown 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 Brown violated the terms of release by possessing the knife and drug paraphernalia, among other things. Brown acknowledged receipt of a “PROS Hold” form that identified the alleged violations. It gave notice of a court hearing set for 17 days after Brown’s arrest. Meza advised Brown 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.” Brown acknowledged receipt of the form and refused to waive his rights. Nine days after Brown’s arrest, the probation department filed a revocation petition. Consistent with the PROS Hold form, the hearing was set for 17 days after Brown’s arrest.