People v. Holladay CA2/6

Filed 6/14/16 P. v. Holladay CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.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. B266488 (Super. Ct. No. 2013000948) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County) v. MICHAEL CLAUS HOLLADAY, Defendant and Appellant.

Michael Claus Holladay appeals an order revoking his Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS; Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.), and committing him to 80 1 days county jail. 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 [33 L.Ed.2d 484] (Morrissey). We affirm. Facts and Procedural History In 2013, appellant pled guilty to evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) with a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant was sentenced to three years eight months state prison. On December 5, 2014, appellant was released from prison and placed on PRCS supervision.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

Appellant was arrested on June 3, 2015 for violating PRCS after he admitted smoking methamphetamine. On June 4, 2015, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Meza informed appellant of the alleged PRCS violations (smoking methamphetamine on two different occasions), 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 the Ventura County Probation Agency recommended 90 days county jail. Appellant declined to waive a formal court hearing. On June 8, 2015, a petition for revocation of PRCS was filed alleging that it was appellant's second PRCS violation and that appellant used methamphetamine on a regular basis and spent approximately half of his supervision time absconding from probation. Appellant filed a Williams motion (Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636) to dismiss on due process grounds which was denied on July 2, 2015. After appellant submitted on the revocation petition, the superior court found appellant in violation of PRCS and ordered him to serve 80 days county jail with 60 days credit. Discussion Appellant argues that his due process rights were violated because he did not receive a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing. The PRCS revocation procedures here challenged are consistent with constitutional, statutory, and decisional law. These procedures do not violate concepts of equal protection or due process of law. We so held in People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393 and People v. Byron (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1009 (petition for review filed May 24, 2016, S234734). We follow our own precedent. Appellant contends that his due process rights were violated because the hearing officer (Meza) was not a neutral hearing officer and should not have made the waiver offer. The record reflects that Meza was not appellant's supervising probation officer or the one who reported the PRCS violation or recommended the PRCS revocation. Appellant was afforded a neutral hearing officer. (See Morrissey, supra, 408