People v. Salas CA2/6

Filed 6/22/16 P. v. Salas CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B267113 (Super. Ct. No. 2011028508) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

KATHERINE H. SALAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Katherine H. Salas appeals from judgment after an order revoking her postrelease community supervision (PRCS). (Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.)1 She contends the revocation procedures employed by Ventura County violated her right to due process because she did not have a Morrissey-compliant2 probable cause hearing before the court within 15 days of arrest. She seeks an order reversing the trial court’s denial of her motion to dismiss. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 2011, Salas was convicted after plea of guilty to felony elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court granted formal probation. After she admitted violating probation, she was sentenced to prison in 2013.

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

Salas was released in 2013 on PRCS following realignment. The Ventura County Probation Agency is her supervising agency. As a condition of release, she agreed to not consume alcohol. She also agreed the probation agency could, without a court hearing, order “flash incarceration” in a county jail for up to 10 days if she violated the conditions of her release. (§ 3453, subd. (q).) In August 2015,3 Salas reported to her scheduled office appointment and submitted to alcohol testing. She tested positive and registered at .05 percent blood alcohol content. This was her sixth violation of PRCS. Salas was taken into custody on August 6. On August 10, Supervising Deputy Probation Officer Michelle Larson met with Salas. Larson advised Salas of her rights, including her right to counsel and a revocation hearing, and conducted an administrative probable cause hearing. Larson concluded there was probable cause to believe that Salas violated the terms of PRCS. Salas refused to waive her rights and requested a formal revocation hearing. On August 12, the probation agency filed a revocation petition. The hearing was set for August 20. On the date of the hearing, Salas moved (through counsel) to dismiss the petition for revocation and for release based upon an alleged violation of due process. She argued she 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 Salas’s motion to dismiss and heard the revocation petition. Salas submitted on the probation officer’s report. The trial court found her in violation of PRCS and ordered her to serve a jail sentence. DISCUSSION Due Process Requirements Revocation of supervised release deprives a person of a conditional liberty interest, and may only be had with due process protections. (Morrissey, supra, 408 U.S.