People v. Rowley CA2/6

Filed 5/10/16 P. v. Rowley CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B267477 (Super. Ct. No. 2013037762) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JEFFREY MARTIN ROWLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jeffrey Martin Rowley appeals the trial court’s order revoking his postrelease community supervision (PRCS) and sentencing him to 90 days in county jail. Appellant contends that the process employed to revoke his PRCS violated his constitutional right to due process. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2014, appellant pled guilty to two counts of second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459),1 and admitted a prior prison term enhancement allegation (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to two years four months in state prison and was released on PRCS approximately a year later. On July 20, 2015, appellant was arrested for violating the terms of his PRCS. The next day, the Ventura County Probation Agency (Probation Agency) held an

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

administrative probable cause hearing. Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza acted as the hearing officer. Appellant told Meza that he failed to report to probation because he had “started using,” and that he needed to do “something about his drug use.” After Meza found probable cause, a different probation officer recommended that appellant’s PRCS be revoked and that he be ordered to serve 90 days in custody with credit for 18 days actual time served. Appellant invoked his right to a revocation hearing and requested counsel. On July 28, 2015, the Probation Agency filed a petition to revoke appellant’s PRCS. A hearing on the petition was held before Judge David R. Worley on August 6, 2015. Citing Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (Williams), appellant’s attorney moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the PRCS revocation process violated appellant’s due process rights because he did not receive an arraignment date within 10 days of his arrest and did not receive a probable cause hearing within 15 days of his arrest. The trial court denied the motion, finding that parole revocation and PRCS revocation processes are different, and that due process protections are safeguarded in the PRCS revocation process by compliance with sections 1203.2 and 3455. It further found that the Probation Agency had conducted a probable cause hearing consistent with Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 (Morrissey) standards. Appellant submitted without presenting any evidence or argument. The court found appellant in violation of PRCS and ordered him to serve 90 days in county jail (with total credit of 18 days). DISCUSSION PRCS Act PRCS was created as an alternative to parole for nonserious and nonviolent felons. (§ 3450 et seq.) PRCS and traditional parole are similar yet not identical. A person who qualifies for PRCS may be supervised for up to three years following his or her release from prison. (§ 3451, subd. (a).) Supervision is conducted by a county agency, such as the Probation Agency, rather than the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Ibid.; People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393, 399 (Gutierrez).) Individuals who violate the conditions of PRCS may be subject to sanctions including