People v. Gonzales CA2/6

Filed 5/24/16 P. v. Gonzales 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.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. B265407 (Super. Ct. No. 2012037929) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County) v. DANNY GONZALES, Defendant and Appellant.

Danny Gonzales appeals an order revoking his Post Release Community 1 Supervision (PRCS). (Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq. ) Appellant contends that his due process 2 rights were violated because he was not provided a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2012, appellant pled guilty in case No. 2012037929 to one misdemeanor count of active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)) and one felony count of reckless evasion of a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and admitted one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court dismissed the serious felony conviction allegation and

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 (Morrissey).

3 sentenced appellant to a total of two years four months in state prison. He was released on PRCS in 2013. On May 11, 2015, appellant was arrested for possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11364, subd. (a), 11377, subd. (a)) and for resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). On May 13, 2015, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza advised appellant of the allegations that he violated his PRCS terms and conditions by committing the foregoing crimes and by failing to report to probation within 48 hours of his most recent release from custody. Meza conducted a probable cause hearing, and determined there was probable cause that appellant had violated his PRCS terms. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant was advised of his right to counsel and right to a formal revocation hearing, and that Ventura County Probation Agency was recommending 180 days in county jail. Appellant rejected the recommendation, denied violating his PRCS and requested appointment of counsel. On May 19, 2015, Ventura County Probation Agency filed a PRCS revocation petition. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant moved to dismiss the petition on due process grounds based on Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (Williams). The trial court denied the motion on June 11, 2015. It found that appellant violated PRCS and ordered him to serve 180 days in county jail (with a total credit of 180 days). DISCUSSION Appellant argues that his procedural due process rights were violated because he did not receive a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing. The PRCS revocation procedures challenged here are consistent with constitutional, statutory and decisional law. These procedures do not violate concepts of equal protection or due process. We so held in People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393, 401-405, and People v. Byron (Apr. 22, 2016) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 Cal.App.LEXIS 314]. We follow our own precedent. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss.