People v. Tarallo CA2/6

Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Tarallo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B265739 (Super. Ct. No. 2010045141) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

TERRY TARALLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Terry Tarallo 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, Tarallo was convicted after plea of guilty to traumatic injury to child (§ 273d, subd. (a)), corporal injury to spouse (§ 273.5), and assault with a deadly

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

weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court granted formal probation. After he admitted violating probation, he was sentenced to prison in 2014. Tarallo 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 obey all laws, not consume alcohol, and maintain a residence with a street address as approved by probation. 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 April 2015,3 Tarallo moved out of his residence without informing probation. In May, he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Tarallo was taken into custody on May 1. On May 4, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza met with Tarallo. Meza advised Tarallo of his rights, including his right to counsel and a revocation hearing, and conducted an administrative probable cause hearing. Meza concluded there was probable cause to believe that Tarallo violated the terms of PRCS. Tarallo refused to waive his rights and requested a formal hearing. On May 8, the probation agency filed a revocation petition. The hearing was set for May 28. On the date of the hearing, Tarallo 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 Tarallo’s motion to dismiss and heard the revocation petition. Tarallo admitted the violations of PRCS. The trial court found him in violation of PRCS and ordered him to serve a jail sentence.