People v. Clark CA2/6

Filed 5/19/16 P. v. Clark CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B266512 (Super. Ct. No. 2010044526) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JOEL DOUG CLARK,

Defendant and Appellant.

Joel Doug Clark appeals from an order revoking his postrelease community supervision (PRCS) and confining him in the county jail for 122 days. Appellant contends that the revocation proceedings violated his due process rights. We affirm. Procedural Background In 2011 appellant pleaded guilty to felony elder abuse. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1).)1 The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on formal probation for 36 months on condition that he serve 300 days in county jail. In 2012 the court revoked probation and sentenced him to prison for two years. In January 2013 appellant was released on PRCS. His supervising county agency was the Ventura County Probation Agency (Probation Agency). In February 2015 he was arrested for violating PRCS. The trial court revoked PRCS and ordered him

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

to serve 120 days in the county jail. Appellant appealed. We filed an unpublished opinion affirming the revocation of PRCS. (People v. Clark (March 30, 2016, B264013) [nonpub. opn].) On April 17, 2015, after serving the 120-day county jail term, appellant was released on PRCS. He failed to report to the Probation Agency. His whereabouts were unknown until his arrest on June 12, 2015. On June 15, 2015, three days after his arrest, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza conducted an administrative probable cause hearing. 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, after his April 17, 2015 release on PRCS, he was hospitalized for one week, made telephone calls to probation that were not returned, and "did not know that he needed to report to probation." Meza found that probable cause existed to believe that appellant had violated PRCS because he had failed to report to the Probation Agency and submit to testing. 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 June 19, 2015, the Probation Agency filed a petition for revocation of PRCS. A court hearing on the petition was set for July 2, 2015, 20 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. Appellant then submitted the matter on the petition. The court found the petition true, revoked PRCS, and ordered appellant to serve 122 days in the county jail.