People v. Ornelas CA2/6

Filed 5/19/16 P. v. Ornelas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B267048 (Super. Ct. No. 2014006042) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JIMMY RUDY ORNELAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jimmy Rudy Ornelas appeals from an order revoking his postrelease community supervision (PRCS) and confining him in the county jail for 120 days. Appellant contends that the revocation proceedings violated his due process rights. We affirm. Procedural Background In April 2014 appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1).)1 He admitted that he had served three prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court struck two of the prior prison terms. It sentenced appellant to prison for two years, four months. In April 2015 appellant was released from prison to PRCS for a period not exceeding three years. His supervising county agency was the Ventura County Probation

1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Agency (Probation Agency). After his release, he failed to report to the Probation Agency. His whereabouts were unknown until May 21, 2015, when he was arrested for taking or driving a vehicle without the owner's consent. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) The arrest occurred after the police had made a traffic stop of a stolen vehicle that appellant was driving. A felony complaint was filed against appellant on May 26, 2015, in new case no. 2015016298. At an administrative hearing conducted the day after his arrest, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza found that probable cause existed to believe that appellant had violated PRCS. Meza advised appellant that he had "the right to present letters and documents and to speak on [his] own behalf at [the] hearing." Appellant told Meza that, "[w]hen he was released from prison, he did not know he was on community supervision." He also said that "[h]e did not know the car he was driving was stolen." Appellant was not represented by counsel at the probable cause hearing. He requested that the Public Defender be appointed to represent him at the revocation hearing. He refused to waive his section 3455 right to a revocation hearing. On May 28, 2015, the Probation Agency filed a petition for revocation of PRCS. A court hearing on the petition was set for June 18, 2015, 28 days after appellant's arrest. On the date of the hearing, appellant's counsel filed a request to dismiss the petition. Counsel alleged: "[T]he postrelease supervision revocation process violates [appellant's] procedural due process rights by not providing for an arraignment date 10 days from his arrest, and a probable cause hearing 15 days from his arrest." The trial court denied the request for a dismissal and set the matter for a contested revocation hearing. The hearing occurred on Monday, July 6, 2015, the 45th day after appellant's arrest. Appellant submitted the matter "on the allegations contained in the petition [for revocation of PRCS]." The court found the allegations true and concluded that appellant had violated PRCS. It ordered that he serve 180 days in county jail and be returned back to PRCS upon his release. On July 21, 2015, the court reduced the county jail term to 120 days.