Filed 5/31/16 P. v. Murdock 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHEA PATRICK MURDOCK, 

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B266855

(Super. Ct. No. 2012039191)

(Ventura County)

Shea Patrick Murdock appeals an order revoking his postrelease 

community supervision (PRCS). (Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.)

1

 Appellant contends that 

his due process rights were violated because he was not provided a Morrissey-compliant2

probable cause hearing. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In May 2013, appellant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon 

(§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and was sentenced to three years in state prison. He was released 

on PRCS in 2014. 

On June 22, 2015, appellant admitted to his probation officer that he had 

ingested "three Norcos" for which he did not have a prescription. After being advised 

that he would be drug tested, appellant replied, "I'm not gonna waste your time, I'm 

 

1

All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 

2

Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 (Morrissey).
2

dirty." On June 30, 2015, appellant was arrested after he admitted to owning a syringe 

and a digital scale and to using methamphetamine. Cocaine and a knife also were found 

in his residence. 

On July 1, 2015, Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza advised 

appellant of the alleged PRCS violations, conducted a probable cause hearing, and 

determined there was probable cause that appellant had violated his PRCS terms.

(§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant was advised of his right to counsel and right to a formal 

revocation hearing, and that Ventura County Probation Agency was recommending 90 

days in county jail. Appellant rejected the recommendation, denied violating PRCS and 

requested appointment of counsel. 

On July 8, 2015, Ventura County Probation Agency filed a PRCS 

revocation petition. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant moved to dismiss the petition on due 

process grounds based on Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636

(Williams). The trial court denied the motion, found that appellant violated PRCS and 

ordered him to serve 90 days in county jail (with a total credit of 34 days). 

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 challenged here are consistent with constitutional, statutory and 

decisional law. These procedures do not violate concepts of equal protection or due 

process. We so held in People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393, 401-405, and 

People v. Byron (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1009. We follow our own precedent. The trial 

court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. 

Appellant contends his due process rights were violated because the 

probable cause hearing was not conducted by a neutral hearing officer and resembled an 

ex parte hearing to solicit a waiver of PRCS rights. The argument is without merit. The 

hearing officer (Meza) was not appellant's supervising probation officer and did not make 

the arrest or prepare the PRCS revocation report. (See Morrissey, supra, 408 U.S. at 

p. 485 [probable cause determination should be made by someone "not directly involved 
3

in the case"]; Williams, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 647 [same].) Appellant makes no 

showing that he was denied a fair hearing.

Moreover, the denial of a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing does 

not warrant reversal unless it results in prejudice at the revocation hearing. (In re 

La Croix (1974) 12 Cal.3d 146, 154-155; People v. Woodall (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 

1221, 1238.) Appellant fails to show that any due process defect prejudiced him or 

affected the outcome of the PRCS revocation hearing. (In re Winn (1975) 13 Cal.3d 694, 

698 [defendant has burden of showing prejudice]; In re Moore (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 

285, 294.) Appellant submitted on all of the allegations in the PRCS revocation petition 

except one, which was stricken, and he has already served the custodial sanction (90 days 

in county jail). (See, e.g., People v. Gutierrez, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 399.) 

"[T]here is nothing for us to remedy, even if we were disposed to do so." (Spencer v. 

Kemna (1998) 523 U.S. 1, 18.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment (order revoking PRCS) is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

TANGEMAN, J. 
4

Donald D. Coleman, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Linda L. Curry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. 

Roadarmel, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy 

Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.