People v. Romo CA2/6

Filed 6/22/16 P. v. Romo CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B265986 (Super. Ct. No. 2010032819) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

YAIR ROMO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Yair Romo appeals from judgment after an order revoking his postrelease community supervision (PRCS). (Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.)1 He contends the revocation order is invalid because there is no written waiver of counsel. He seeks an order vacating the revocation order. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 2011, Romo was convicted after plea of guilty to false imprisonment by violence. (§ 236.) He was sentenced to prison. Romo was released in 2015 on PRCS following realignment. The Ventura County Probation Agency is his supervising agency. As a condition of release, he agreed to obey all laws, attend domestic violence classes, not use or possess drugs or narcotics, and not alter or adulterate drug test samples. He also agreed the probation agency could,

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

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 May 2015,2 Romo provided a fake urine sample to his probation officer. The officer observed him pour a liquid from a bag concealed in his pants into the provided urine cup. He then admitted using methamphetamine. He also had two unexcused absences from his domestic violence classes. Romo was taken into custody on May 19. On May 20, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza met with Romo. Meza advised Romo of his right to counsel and conducted an administrative probable cause hearing. Meza concluded there was probable cause to believe that Romo violated the terms of PRCS. Romo agreed to a period of confinement of 120 days in county jail. On May 28, the probation agency filed a revocation petition. The hearing was set for June 11. On the date of the hearing, Romo moved (through counsel) to vacate his waiver of a revocation hearing because he signed the waiver before the petition for revocation was filed. He argued that section 3455 requires that the waiver follow the filing of the petition. The trial court denied Romo’s motion to vacate and heard the revocation petition. Romo submitted on the probation officer’s report. The trial court found him in violation of PRCS and ordered him to serve 120 days in county jail. DISCUSSION The Record Does Not Support Romo’s Argument On appeal, Romo argues that his waiver of counsel was not in writing, as required by sections 1203.2, subdivision (b)(2) and 3455. He emphasizes that those sections expressly refer to written waivers. But the record does not support Romo’s argument. Instead, the record is replete with references to his signed waiver. During the revocation hearing, Romo