People v. Paez CA2/6

Filed 5/19/16 P. v. Paez CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B268151 (Super. Ct. No. SCR587927) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County) v. STEPHANIE LYNN PAEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Stephanie Lynn Paez appeals an order revoking her Post Release 1 Community Supervision (PRCS; Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.) , entered after appellant admitted violating PRCS and agreed to serve 60 days county jail. Appellant contends that her due process rights were violated because she was not arraigned within 10 days of her arrest or provided a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing (Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 [33 L.Ed.2d 484] (Morrissey)), and admitted the PRCS violation in writing without the benefit of counsel. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History In 2010, appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance in a jail facility (§ 4573.6) and was sentenced to three years state prison. Appellant was released in 2012 and placed on PRCS supervision with drug terms. After multiple arrests for probation violations, appellant was arrested on August 21, 2015 for being under the

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

influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), giving false identification to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)), and false impersonation (§ 529, subd. (a)(3)). Appellant had 16.1 grams of marijuana on her person, admitted smoking "meth with some weed," and tested positive for methamphetamine, THC, MDMA, and opiates. At the August 24, 2015 probable cause hearing, an administrative hearing officer determined there was probable cause that appellant had violated her PRCS terms and advised appellant that the Ventura County Probation Agency was recommending 60 days county jail. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant was informed of her right to a formal revocation hearing, her right to counsel, her right to testify and present evidence, and her right to call/confront/cross-examine witnesses. (Ibid.) Waiving each of those rights, 2 appellant admitted the PRCS violation and agreed to serve 60 days county jail. On August 28, 2015, Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition to revoke PRCS and requested that the superior court approve the PRCS modification. (§ 3455.) Appellant appeared with counsel and moved to vacate the waiver because it was signed without the benefit of counsel. The court denied the motion, approved the written waivers and PRCS modification, and ordered appellant to serve 60 days county jail with 21 days actual credit. Discussion Appellant argues that her procedural due process rights were violated because she was not arraigned within 10 days of her arrest and did not receive a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing. The PRCS revocation procedures here are consistent with constitutional, statutory, and decisional law. These procedures do not violate concepts of equal protection or due process of law. We so held in People v.