People v. Zuniga CA2/6

Filed 7/27/16 P. v. Zuniga CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B266485 (Super. Ct. No. 2013001288) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

DANNY ZUNIGA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Danny Zuniga was subject to postrelease community supervision (PRCS) when he was arrested. (Pen. Code, § 3451.) He had an informal probable cause hearing before a probation officer. The trial court found the PRCS revocation process does not violate due process standards. At a court revocation hearing, it found Zuniga violated his PRCS conditions. Zuniga contends, among other things, that the trial court erred because the PRCS revocation process violates his right to due process. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2013, Zuniga pled guilty to evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), a felony, and hit and run driving (id., § 20002, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to an aggregate term of two years eight months. On November 25, 2014, Zuniga was released on PRCS. On June 18, 2015, Zuniga was arrested for violating his PRCS conditions.

On June 19, 2015, at a probable cause hearing, Probation Officer Venessa Meza found Zuniga violated his PRCS conditions. On June 26, 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition for revocation of PRCS. On July 2, 2015, Zuniga filed a motion to dismiss the petition citing Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (Williams) and Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 (Morrissey). He claimed the PRCS revocation process violated his due process rights. On July 2, 2015, the trial court denied the motion and found the PRCS procedure complied with due process. At the revocation hearing held the same day, Zuniga submitted “on the allegations contained in the petition.” The trial court found Zuniga violated his PRCS conditions and ordered him to serve 60 days in county jail with a credit of 30 days. DISCUSSION Zuniga contends, among other things, that 1) the process used to revoke his PRCS violated his right to due process, 2) he did not have a probable cause hearing that complied with Morrissey standards, 3) the procedure used by the probation officer at the probable cause hearing was unfair, 4) the probable cause hearing “was nothing more than a pro forma, ex-parte interview,” 5) Meza conducted the hearing “for the purpose of obtaining an agreement” and not for the purpose of any “fact-finding,” and 6) he was entitled to the procedures provided to parolees mentioned in Williams and Proposition 9. The People object to issues Zuniga raises that he did not raise in the trial court. Their objections are well taken. But even on the merits, the result does not change. The PRCS procedures here did not violate Zuniga's equal protection or due process rights. (People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393, 402-404; see also People v. Byron (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1014-1017.) After his arrest for violating PRCS conditions, he received a prompt probable cause hearing. (Gutierrez, at p. 402.)