People v. Contreras CA2/6

Filed 5/31/16 P. v. Contreras CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B265410 (Super. Ct. No. 2013023719) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

ERNIE CONTRERAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ernie Contreras 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. Contreras 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 2014, Contreras was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of a sawed-off shotgun (id., § 33215). He was sentenced to three years in state prison. In January 2015, Contreras was released on PRCS. On May 28, 2015, Contreras was arrested for violating his PRCS conditions. His violations of PRCS included, among other things, associating with gang members and having possession or control of a "dangerous weapon."

On June 1, 2015, a probable cause hearing was held before Probation Officer Venessa Meza. Meza found probable cause for finding that Contreras violated his PRCS conditions. In the probation officer's written report for revocation of PRCS, the probation agency stated that Contreras was advised of his right to counsel, he denied the violation, "declined to accept" a "proposed sanction," and requested a court hearing. On June 5, 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition to revoke PRCS and scheduled a hearing date for June 25, 2015. On June 25, 2015, Contreras appeared in court with counsel and denied the allegations of that petition. On June 30, 2015, Contreras's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Contreras claimed the revocation process violated his due process rights and cited Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (Williams). On July 1, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on that motion. The court ruled Williams, a parole revocation case, had no application to PRCS. It found probation had conducted a probable cause hearing consistent with Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 (Morrissey) standards and it denied the motion. At that hearing Contreras waived time for the revocation hearing. On July 13, 2015, he filed an appeal from the order denying his motion to dismiss the petition. On August 12, 2015, the trial court found Contreras had violated his PRCS conditions. It ordered him to serve 180 days in the Ventura County jail with a total credit of 152 days. DISCUSSION Contreras contends, among other things, that 1) the process used to revoke his PRCS violated his right to due process, 2) he did not have a probable cause hearing that complied with Morrissey standards, 3) PRCS is not consistent with Proposition 9, 4) the hearing officer at the probable cause hearing was interested in securing a waiver