People v. Meza CA2/6

Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Meza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.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. B266792 (Super. Ct. No. 2009012184) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County) v. JUAN MEZA, Defendant and Appellant.

Juan Meza appeals an order revoking his Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS). (Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.)1 Appellant contends that his due 2 process rights were violated because he was not provided a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In January 2013, appellant pled guilty to two counts of selling, transporting, or offering to sell a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), and was sentenced to three years in state prison. He was released on PRCS approximately a year later.

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

On July 1, 2015, appellant was taken into custody. On that date, he informed a probation officer that he would rather do "custody time" than participate in a drug treatment program. On July 2, 2015, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza advised appellant of the alleged PRCS violations (using controlled substances and failing to participate in Narcotics Anonymous meetings), 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 rights to counsel and to a formal revocation hearing, and that the Ventura County Probation Agency was recommending 120 days in county jail. Appellant rejected the recommendation, denied violating PRCS and requested appointment of counsel. On July 7, 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency filed a PRCS revocation petition. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant moved to dismiss the petition on due process grounds based on Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (Williams). The trial court denied the motion on July 16, 2015, found that appellant violated PRCS and ordered him to serve 120 days in county jail (with a total credit of 32 days). DISCUSSION Appellant argues that his procedural due process rights were violated because he did not receive a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing. The PRCS revocation procedures here utilized are consistent with constitutional, statutory and decisional law. These procedures do not violate concepts of equal protection or due process. We so held in People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393, 401-405, and People v. Byron (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1014-1018. We follow our own precedent. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. Appellant contends his due process rights were violated because the probable cause hearing was not conducted by a neutral hearing officer and resembled an ex parte hearing to solicit a waiver of PRCS rights. The argument is without merit. The hearing officer (Meza) was not appellant's supervising probation officer and did not make