People v. Quiroz CA2/6

Filed 6/6/16 P. v. Quiroz CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B267122 (Super. Ct. No. 2012031146) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

ROGELIO TOVAR QUIROZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Rogelio Tovar Quiroz appeals the trial court’s order revoking his postrelease community supervision (PRCS) and ordering him to serve 170 days in county jail with 41 days of presentence custody credit. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 3450 et seq., 3455, subd. (d).) Appellant contends that his due process rights were violated because he was not provided a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing. (Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 (Morrissey).) We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2014, appellant was convicted of corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and sentenced to two years state prison. On April 23, 2014, he was released from prison and placed on PRCS.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

On Friday, July 10, 2015, appellant was arrested for violating PRCS by (1) failing to report to probation; (2) failing to submit to drug testing; (3) failing to report his whereabouts; and (4) failing to obey all laws by violating a protective order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)), committing false imprisonment (§ 236), and willfully resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). On July 13, 2015, appellant signed an acknowledgment indicating that he had been informed of his right to receive written notice of the alleged violations of his PRCS, his right to an administrative probable cause hearing no more than two business days after he was taken into custody, and his right to speak at the hearing and present letters and documents on his behalf. That same day, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza advised appellant of the alleged PRCS violations, conducted a probable cause hearing, and determined there was probable cause that appellant had violated his PRCS. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant was advised of his rights to counsel and a formal revocation hearing. He was also informed that the Ventura County Probation Agency (the Probation Agency) was recommending 180 days in county jail with 21 days of custody credit. Appellant denied the alleged PRCS violations, declined to accept the proposed sanction, and requested a formal revocation hearing. On July 17, 2015, the Probation Agency filed a PRCS revocation petition and set the matter for hearing on July 30, 2015. On July 24, 2015, appellant filed a motion to dismiss on due process grounds pursuant Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (Williams), and calendared the matter to be heard in conjunction with the revocation petition. At the July 30th hearing, the court denied the motion to dismiss and appellant proceeded to admit the allegations in the revocation petition. The court granted the petition and ordered appellant to serve 170 days in county jail with 41 days of actual custody credit. DISCUSSION Appellant contends that his due process rights were violated because he did not receive an arraignment within 10 days of his arrest or a probable cause hearing within 15 days of his arrest, as contemplated in Williams, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th 636. He also