People v. Rodriguez CA2/6

Filed 5/31/16 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B266473 (Super. Ct. No. 2011039938) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

ECTOR RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ector Rodriguez 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 Rodriguez in violation of PRCS. Rodriguez 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 2012, Rodriguez was convicted of corporal injury to a spouse. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).) He was placed on formal probation for 36 months. In 2014, he violated his probation conditions and was sentenced to two years in state prison. In 2015, Rodriguez was released on PRCS. On May 22, 2015, Rodriguez was arrested for violating his PRCS conditions. Among other things, he failed to participate in 52 weeks of domestic violence counseling.

On May 28, 2015, a probable cause hearing was held before Probation Officer Venessa Meza. Meza found probable cause for finding that Rodriguez violated his PRCS conditions. In the June 5, 2015, probation officer's written report for revocation of PRCS, the probation agency stated that Rodriguez was advised of his right to counsel, he denied the violation, and "declined to accept" a "proposed sanction." On June 5, 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition to revoke PRCS. On June 18, 2015, Rodriguez's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Rodriguez claimed the revocation process violated his due process rights and cited Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (Williams). On June 18, 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 denied the motion. On June 22, 2015, the trial court found Rodriguez had violated his PRCS conditions. It ordered him to serve 120 days in the Ventura County jail with a total credit of 64 days. DISCUSSION Rodriguez notes that in Williams the court held parolees must be arraigned within 10 days of their arrest for parole violations. But we need not decide whether this requirement applies in PRCS revocation proceedings because appellant has not shown he was prejudiced. (In re La Croix (1974) 12 Cal.3d 146, 154.) On May 28, 2015, the same day as his probable cause hearing, and six days after his arrest, Rodriguez was arraigned in court on his PRCS case and was represented by counsel. Rodriguez contends, among other things, that 1) he was denied due process because he did not receive a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing, 2) PRCS violates Proposition 9 procedures, 3) he was not provided an "adequate probable