People v. Rangel CA2/6

Filed 5/31/16 P. v. Rangel CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B264243 (Super. Ct. No. 2008008322) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

ERNEST RANGEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ernest Rangel 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. Rangel 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 2008, Rangel was convicted of sale or transportation of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) He was placed on formal probation for 36 months. In 2011, after committing probation violations, the trial court sentenced Rangel to five years in state prison. In 2012, Rangel was released on PRCS. On February 15, 2015, Rangel was arrested for violating his PRCS conditions. The probation department noted, among other things, that he had been

arrested by police for obstructing and delaying a peace officer. (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).) On February 17, 2015, a probable cause hearing was held before Probation Officer Venessa Meza. At that hearing, Rangel initially agreed to sign a "revocation waiver for 180 days in custody." He later "declined to sign" and "provided no additional statement." Meza found probable cause for finding that Rangel violated his PRCS conditions. In the February 20, 2015, probation officer's written report for revocation of PRCS, the probation agency stated that Rangel was advised of his right to counsel and the public defender's office had been notified. On February 24, 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition to revoke PRCS. On March 12, 2015, Rangel's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Rangel claimed the revocation process violated his due process rights and cited Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (Williams). On March 12, 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. On that same day, the trial court found Rangel had violated his PRCS conditions. It ordered him to serve 160 days in the Ventura County jail with a total credit of 52 days. DISCUSSION Rangel contends the process used to revoke his PRCS violated his right to due process because he was not promptly arraigned or given a probable cause hearing before a neutral decision maker, as required by Morrissey. He claims he was entitled to be arraigned within 10 days of his arrest because Williams held parolees are entitled to this procedure.