People v. Landeros CA2/6

Filed 6/15/16 P. v. Landeros CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.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. B265744 (Super. Ct. No. 2013012520) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County) v. ERICA LANDEROS, Defendant and Appellant.

Erica Landeros appeals an order revoking her Post Release Community 1 Supervision (PRCS; Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.) after appellant admitted violating PRCS and accepted a 90-day custodial sanction. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant contends that her due process rights were violated because she 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 was convicted by plea of unlawful possession of ammunition (§30305, subd. (a)(1)) and granted three years probation with 210 days jail. The trial court terminated probation and sentenced appellant to 16 months state prison on February 6, 2015. Because appellant's presentence custody credits exceeded the prison sentence, she was released on PRCS.

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

On April 20, 2015, appellant sustained a 10-day flash incarceration for absconding from probation and failing to attend substance abuse treatment. Appellant was released on April 26, 2015, and a week later, arrested for violating a protective order. On May 4, 2015, Senior Deputy Probation Officer V. Meza advised appellant of the alleged PRCS violations (violating a protective order, not obtaining a residence approved by a probation officer, not participating in substance abuse treatment), conducted a probable cause hearing, and determined there was probable cause that appellant had violated her PRCS terms. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant was advised of her right to counsel and right to a formal revocation hearing, and that Ventura County Probation Agency recommended 90 days county jail. Appellant admitted violating PRCS, signed written waivers, and agreed to serve 90 days county jail. On May 8, 2015, Ventura County Probation Agency filed a PRCS revocation petition. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant appeared with counsel and made a Williams motion (Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636) to dismiss the petition on due process grounds. Denying the motion, the trial court approved the written waivers and ordered appellant to serve 90 days county jail with 54 days credit. Discussion Appellant argues that her procedural due process rights were violated because she 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. We follow our own precedent. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. Appellant contends that the probable cause hearing was a pro forma ex parte interview and was not conducted by a neutral hearing officer. The argument is without merit. The record reflects that the hearing officer (Meza) was not appellant's supervising probation officer or the one who reported the PRCS violation or recommended revocation. Appellant was afforded a neutral hearing officer. (See