People v. Plata CA2/6

Filed 5/18/16 P. v. Plata CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B267115 (Super. Ct. No. 2012017651) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

DAVID PLATA,

Defendant and Appellant.

David Plata was subject to postrelease community supervision (PRCS) when he was arrested. (Pen. Code, § 3451.) He had an informal probable cause hearing before a probation officer. Subsequently, the trial court found him in violation of PRCS. He contends, among other things, that the trial court erred because the PRCS revocation process violates his right to due process. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2013, Plata was convicted of driving under the influence with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, §§ 23550.5, subd. (a), 23152) and petty theft with three prior convictions (Pen. Code, § 666 subd. (a)). He was sentenced to two years eight months in state prison. In November 2014, Plata was released on PRCS. On July 13, 2015, Plata was arrested for violating his PRCS terms.

On July 15, 2015, a probable cause hearing was held before Probation Officer Venessa Meza. Meza found probable cause for finding Plata violated his PRCS conditions. In the probation officer's written report for revocation of PRCS, the probation agency stated that Plata was advised of his right to counsel, that he denied the violation, "declined to accept" a "proposed sanction," and requested a court hearing. On July 22, 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition to revoke PRCS and scheduled a hearing date for July 30, 2015. On July 27, 2015, Plata's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Plata claimed the revocation process violated his due process rights and cited Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (Williams). On July 30, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on that motion. The court denied the motion. On August 24, 2015, Plata appeared in court with his public defender and he submitted on the allegations in the petition alleging PRCS violations. The trial court found he violated PRCS and ordered him to serve 60 days in county jail with a total credit of 60 days. On August 31, 2015, Plata was arrested for violating his PRCS conditions. He had a probable cause hearing before Meza on September 2, 2015. Meza found probable cause that Plata had violated his PRCS conditions. On September 8, 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition to revoke PRCS. The probation officer's written report for revocation indicated that Plata had been advised of his right to counsel, that he denied the violations, rejected a "proposed sanction," and demanded a court revocation hearing. On September 15, 2015, Plata's counsel filed a motion "to dismiss the petition." Citing Williams and Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 472 (Morrissey), he claimed the PRCS revocation process violated due process. On September 17, 2015, the trial court found that Meza conducted a probable cause hearing which was compliant with Morrissey, 2) the parole procedures set