Filed 5/31/16 P. v. Contrer a s CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
ERNIE CONTRERAS,
Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B26 5410 (Super. Ct. No. 2013023719 ) (Ventura County)

Ernie Contreras was subject to postrelease community supervision (PRCS) when he was arrested

. (Pen. Code, § 3451.) He had an informal probable cause hearing before a probation officer

. Subsequently
, t he trial court found him in violation
of PRCS

. Contreras contends , among other things, that the trial court erred because the PRCS revocation process violates his right to due process

. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2014, Contreras was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1) ) and pos session of a sawed

- off shot gun ( id. , § 33215 )

. He was sentenced t o three years in state prison.

In January 2015 , Contreras was released on PRCS. On May 28, 2015, Contreras was arrested for violating his PRCS
conditions. His violations of PRCS included, among other things, associating with gang members and having possession or co ntrol of a "dangerous weapon."2 On June 1, 2015, a probable cause hearing was h eld before Probation
O fficer Venessa Meza. Meza found pr obable cause for finding that Contreras violated
his PRCS conditions.

In the proba tion officer's w ritten report for revocation of PRCS , the probation a gency stated that Contreras was advised of his right to counsel, he denied the violation, "declined to accept" a "proposed sanction
, " and requested a court hearing.

On June 5, 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition to
revoke PRCS and scheduled a he aring date for June 25, 2015.

On June 25, 2015, Contreras appeared in court with counsel and denied
the allegations of that petition.

On June 30, 2015 , Contreras' s counsel filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Contreras claimed the revocation process violated his due process rights and
cited Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636 ( Williams )

. On July 1,
2015 , the trial court held a hearing on that motion. The court ruled Williams
, a parole revocation case, had no application to PRCS. It found probation had conducted a probable cause hearing consistent with Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 ( Morrissey ) standards and it denied the motion

. At that hearing Contreras waived ti me for the revocation hearing. On July 13, 2015, he filed an appeal from the order denying
his motion to di smiss the petition.

On August 12, 2015 , the trial court found Contreras had violated his
PRCS conditions. It ordered him to serve 180 days in the V entura County jail wi th a total credit of 152 days.
DISCUSSION

Contreras cont ends, among other things, that 1) the process used to revoke his PRCS violated his right to due process, 2) he did not hav e a probable cause hearing
that complied with Morrissey standards, 3) PRCS is not consistent with Pro position 9, 4) the hearing officer at the probable cause hearing was interested in securing a waiver3

of rights, 5) it was not an adequate fact f inding hearing, 6) it was an ex parte process, and 7) he was entit led to the procedures provided to parolees in Williams

.

The PRCS procedures here do not violate Contreras's equal protection or due process rights. ( People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393, 402

- 404.) After his arrest for violating PRCS conditions
, Contreras received a prompt probable cause hearing. ( Id. 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 are not required to be identical. ( Gutierrez , at pp. 403

- 404.) There are valid justifications for the different procedures. ( Ibid. ) The trial court found there was "no deprivation of Mr. Contre ras' due process rights." Contreras has not shown that he
introduced evidence in the trial court: 1) to challenge that finding, 2) to show that the hearing officers at probable cause hearings are not neutral, 3) to show that their findings
are incorrect or unreliable, 4) to show that the procedure was unfair, or 5) to show that he was not afforded a prompt probable cause hearing after his arrest. He consequently is not in a position to challenge the trial court's finding that the probable cause hearings comply with Morrissey standards.

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.) Contreras makes no showing that a due process defect prejudiced him or affected the outcome of the PRCS revocation hearing. ( In re Moore (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 285, 294.) The court revoked Contreras's PRCS , but he has not produced a reporter's transcript of that proceeding. Contreras has not demonstrated that the order revoking PRCS or the findings made at the probable cause hearing were incorrect. Consequently
, he has not produced a record or made the required showing for a reversal. ( In re Winn (1975) 1 3 Cal.3d 694, 697

- 698; People v.
Woodall (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1238.) He has served his custodial sanction.4

"[T]here is nothing for us to remedy

. . . . " ( Spencer v. Kemna (1998) 523 U.S. 1, 18.)
We have reviewed his remaining contentions and co nclude he has not shown error.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

PERREN, J.

TANGEMAN, J.5 Donald D. 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, Victoria B. Wilson, Sup ervising Deputy Attorney General, Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.