People v. Webb CA2/6

Filed 6/16/16 P. v. Webb CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B266587 (Super. Ct. No. 2020032632) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

CREAGH WEBB,

Defendant and Appellant.

Creagh Webb appeals from judgment after an order revoking his postrelease community supervision (PRCS). (Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.)1 He contends the revocation procedures employed by Ventura County violated his right to due process because he did not have a Morrissey-compliant2 probable cause hearing before the court within 15 days of arrest. He seeks an order reversing the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 2011, Webb was convicted after plea of guilty to driving under the influence causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)). In a separate case, he was convicted of identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Webb to consecutive prison terms.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 (Morrissey).

Webb was released in 2012 on PRCS following realignment. The Ventura County Probation Agency is his supervising agency. As a condition of release, he agreed to report to probation as directed, to not use drugs or controlled substances, to not associate with persons using or trafficking in drugs or controlled substances, to submit to drug testing, and to participate in drug treatment as directed. He also agreed the probation agency could, without a court hearing, order “flash incarceration” in a county jail for up to 10 days if he violated the conditions of his release. (§ 3453, subd. (q).) In June 2015,3 Webb failed to report to a scheduled appointment with probation. The same month, he tested positive for codeine and morphine, admitted using heroin, and was contacted while asking another known user for “dope.” Webb also did not report for drug testing and did not re-enroll in drug treatment as directed. These acts collectively resulted in revocation proceedings for his sixth violation of PRCS. Webb was taken into custody on June 14. The next day, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza met with Webb. Meza conducted an administrative probable cause hearing, and concluded there was probable cause to believe that Webb violated the terms of PRCS. She advised Webb of his right to be represented by an attorney. On June 19, the probation agency filed a revocation petition. The hearing was set for July 2. On the day of the hearing, Webb moved (through counsel) to dismiss the petition for revocation and for release based upon an alleged violation of due process. He argued he was entitled to arraignment before a court within 10 days of arrest and a probable cause hearing before a court within 15 days of arrest. The trial court denied Webb’s motion to dismiss and heard the revocation petition. Webb submitted on the probation officer’s report. The trial court found him in violation of PRCS and ordered him to serve a jail sentence.