People v. Alfaro CA2/6

Filed 8/24/16 P. v. Alfaro CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B267502 (Super. Ct. No. 2013014879) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

MARIO ALFARO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Mario Alfaro was subject to postrelease community supervision (PRCS) when he was arrested for alleged violations of his PRCS conditions. (Pen. Code, § 3451.)1 His informal probable cause hearing was before a probation officer. Subsequently, the trial court found him in violation of PRCS. He contends, among other things, that the PRCS revocation process violated his right to due process. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2013, Alfaro pled guilty to failure to register. (§ 290.011, subd. (a).) He was placed on probation. In 2014, he violated his probation terms and was sentenced to 16 months in state prison. On December 31, 2014, Alfaro was released on PRCS. On July 28, 2015, Alfaro was arrested for violating his PRCS terms. The next day, a probable cause hearing was held before Probation Officer Venessa Meza who found

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

probable cause that Alfaro violated his PRCS conditions. On August 6, 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition to revoke PRCS and scheduled a hearing date for August 13, 2015. On August 13, 2015, Alfaro 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 procedure violated his due process rights. The trial court denied the motion and found Alfaro received “a Morrissey compliant probable cause hearing . . . .” Then the court held a PRCS revocation hearing. Alfaro submitted on the allegations of the petition. The court found the allegations in the petition “to be true.” It ordered Alfaro to serve 100 days in the county jail with a credit of 34 days. DISCUSSION Alfaro contends, among other things, that 1) he did not have a probable cause hearing that complied with Morrissey standards; 2) the PRCS process violates Williams and Proposition 9; 3) the probation officer conducts only “a pro forma, ex-parte interview,” instead of a “fact-finding” probable cause hearing; 4) the officer was not neutral; and 5) the officer did not advise him of his rights. The PRCS procedures here did not violate Alfaro’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, Alfaro received a prompt probable cause hearing. (Gutierrez, at p. 402.) The PRCS hearing officers who decide probable cause are neutral decision makers. (Morrissey, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 485 [“someone not directly involved in the case”]; Gutierrez, at p. 402.) PRCS procedures and Proposition 9 parole procedures involve different types of offenders and different procedures. (Gutierrez, at pp. 403-404.) There are valid justifications for the different procedures. (Ibid.) Consequently, “there is no requirement that the PRCS revocations and parole revocations use the identical procedure or timeline.” (People v. Byron, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1017.) Alfaro relies on Williams. But “Williams is not a PRCS case and did not consider the due process requirements for a PRCS