People v. Delgado CA2/6

Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Delgado CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B266801 (Super. Ct. No. 2013001146) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JEREMY LEE DELGADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jeremy Lee Delgado 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 was not provided with counsel at his probable cause hearing before the supervising agency; was not brought before the court for arraignment within 10 days of arrest; did not have a probable cause hearing before the court within 15 days of arrest; a probation officer asked him to waive his rights before the revocation petition was filed; and a probation officer (rather than a judicial officer) served as the probable cause hearing officer. We affirm.

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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 2013, Delgado was convicted after plea of guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Delgado to a two-year prison term. Delgado was released in 2014 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, maintain a residence with a street address as approved by probation, not to use or possess narcotics or controlled substances, and to consent to drug testing. 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).) Delgado failed to report to probation for his scheduled appointment of June 22, 2015.2 On June 25, a probation officer spoke with him and Delgado agreed to report that day, but he failed to do so. The owner of the sober living residence where Delgado resided advised probation that Delgado left the residence on June 22, and never returned. Delgado admitted using methamphetamine on June 18, and failed to report for drug testing on June 22, 24, and 25. He was arrested for violating the terms of PRCS. On June 29, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza met with Delgado. Meza advised Delgado in writing that he had the right to written notice of the alleged violations, the right to an administrative hearing within two business days, and the right at that hearing to speak on his own behalf and present letters and documents. Meza conducted an administrative probable cause hearing, and concluded there was probable cause to believe that Delgado violated the terms of PRCS. Meza advised Delgado of his right to a formal revocation hearing at which he would have the right to be represented by an attorney, the right to call and confront witnesses, and the right to testify or remain silent. Delgado refused to waive his rights.