Filed 6/15/16 P. v. Landeros 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

ERICA LANDEROS, 

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B265744

(Super. Ct. No. 2013012520)

(Ventura County)

Erica Landeros appeals an order revoking her Post Release Community 

Supervision (PRCS; Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.)1after appellant admitted violating PRCS 

and accepted a 90-day custodial sanction. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant contends that 

her due process rights were violated because she was not provided a Morrissey-compliant 

probable cause hearing (Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 [33 L.Ed.2d 484] 

(Morrissey). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

In 2013, appellant was convicted by plea of unlawful possession of 

ammunition (§30305, subd. (a)(1)) and granted three years probation with 210 days jail. 

The trial court terminated probation and sentenced appellant to 16 months state prison on 

February 6, 2015. Because appellant's presentence custody credits exceeded the prison 

sentence, she was released on PRCS. 

 

1

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 
2

On April 20, 2015, appellant sustained a 10-day flash incarceration for

absconding from probation and failing to attend substance abuse treatment. Appellant 

was released on April 26, 2015, and a week later, arrested for violating a protective order. 

On May 4, 2015, Senior Deputy Probation Officer V. Meza advised appellant of the 

alleged PRCS violations (violating a protective order, not obtaining a residence approved 

by a probation officer, not participating in substance abuse treatment), conducted a 

probable cause hearing, and determined there was probable cause that appellant had 

violated her PRCS terms. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant was advised of her right to 

counsel and right to a formal revocation hearing, and that Ventura County Probation 

Agency recommended 90 days county jail. Appellant admitted violating PRCS, signed 

written waivers, and agreed to serve 90 days county jail.

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

revocation petition. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant appeared with counsel and made a 

Williams motion (Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636) to dismiss the 

petition on due process grounds. Denying the motion, the trial court approved the written 

waivers and ordered appellant to serve 90 days county jail with 54 days credit. 

Discussion

Appellant argues that her procedural due process rights were violated 

because she 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 protection or due 

process of law. We so held in People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393. 

We follow our own precedent. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to 

dismiss. 

Appellant contends that the probable cause hearing was a pro forma ex 

parte interview and was not conducted by a neutral hearing officer. The argument is 

without merit. The record reflects that the hearing officer (Meza) was not appellant's 

supervising probation officer or the one who reported the PRCS violation or 

recommended revocation. Appellant was afforded a neutral hearing officer. (See 
3

Morrissey, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 486 [33 L.Ed.2d at p. 497]; Williams, supra, 230 

Cal.App.4th at p. 647 [probable cause finding must be by someone not directly involved 

in the case].)

The denial of a Morrissey compliant probable cause hearing does not 

warrant reversal unless the violation results in prejudice at the revocation hearing. (In re 

La Croix (1974) 12 Cal.3d 146, 154-155.) Appellant makes no showing that any due 

process defect in the probable cause hearing prejudiced her 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 admitted 

the PRCS violations, signed written waivers, and has already served the custodial 

sanction (90 days county jail). (See e.g., People v. Gutierrez, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 399 [defendant submitted on PRCS revocation petition without contesting the probable 

cause determination].) "[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 [140 L.Ed.2d 43, 56].) 

Disposition

The judgment (order revoking PRCS) is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

TANGEMAN, J.
Donald Coleman, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Wayne C. Tobin, 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, Shawn 

McGahey Webb, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Nathan Guttman, Deputy 

Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.