Filed 6/15/ 16 P. v. Landeros CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.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. 20130125 2 0) (Ventura County)

Erica Landeros appeals an order revoking her Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS; Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq .) 1 after appellant admitted vio lating 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 year s probation with 210 days jail. The trial court terminated prob ation and sentenced appellant to 16 months state prison on February 6, 2015. Because appellant's presentence custody credits exceeded the prison

sente nce, 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 D eputy Probation Officer V. Meza advised appellant o f 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 appell ant 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
, si gned
written waiver s , and agreed to serve 90 days county jail.

On May 8, 201 5 , Ventura County Probation Agency filed a PRCS revocation p etition. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant appeared with counsel and made a
Williams motion ( Williams v. Superior Cour t (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636) to dismiss the

pe tition on due process grounds. Denying the motion, t he trial court approved the written waivers and ordered appellant to serve 90 days co unty jail with 54 days credit.
Discussion Appellant argues that her p rocedural due process rights were violated
because she did not receive a Morrissey

- compliant probable cause hearing. The PRCS

rev ocation 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 d enying the motion to
dismiss. Appellant co ntends that the probabl e 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 rep orted the PRCS violation or recommended revocation. Appellant was afforded a neutral hearing officer. (See3

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 mak es no showing that any due process defect in the probable cause hearing prejudiced h er 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.) A ppellant 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 p etition without contesting the probable cause determination].) "[T]he re 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.