People v. Rasheed CA2/6

Filed 8/23/16 P. v. Rasheed 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B267298 (Super. Ct. No. 2011039045) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

MALIK ALI RASHEED,

Defendant and Appellant.

Malik Ali Rasheed appeals an order revoking his Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS). (Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.) Appellant contends, among other things, that his due process rights were violated because he was not provided a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing. (Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471.) We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2011, appellant pled guilty to felony evasion (Veh. Code, § 2800, subd. (a), count 1), unlawful taking of a vehicle (id., § 10851, subd. (a), count 2), and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1), count 4). Appellant also admitted prior prison allegations. Appellant was sentenced to the midterm of three years in state prison on count 2, a consecutive eight-month term on count 1, a

concurrent 60-day term on count 4, and a consecutive one-year term for one of his prison priors. Appellant was awarded 93 days of presentence custody credit, and the remaining counts and prison priors were dismissed. In May 2014, appellant was released on PRCS. On July 22, 2015, appellant was arrested for possessing methamphetamine, a glass pipe (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11364, 11377, subd. (a)), and a set of burglary tools (Pen. Code, § 466). It was his seventh PRCS violation since his release from prison. On July 23, 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency (Agency) held a probable cause hearing and established probable cause for the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of PRCS. The hearing was conducted by Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza. Appellant declined to make any statements regarding the alleged violations and “crumbled up all of his papers into a ball before exiting the interview rooms.” Appellant requested a formal hearing, which was scheduled for August 6, 2015. On July 28, 2015, the Agency filed a petition for revocation of PRCS, alleging that appellant had violated PRCS by engaging in unlawful conduct and illegally possessing controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and burglary tools. (Pen. Code, § 3455, subd. (a).) On August 6, 2015, appellant moved to dismiss the revocation petition on due process grounds based on Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636. That same day, the court heard and denied the motion. Appellant then submitted on the allegations. The court found him in violation of PRCS and ordered him to serve 90 days in county jail with total credit of 32 days for time served. DISCUSSION Appellant argues that his procedural due process rights were violated because he did not receive a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing. The PRCS revocation procedures here challenged are consistent with constitutional, statutory and decisional law. These procedures do not violate concepts of equal