Filed 5/19/16 P. v. Paez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

STEPHANIE LYNN PAEZ,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B268151

(Super. Ct. No. SCR587927)

(Ventura County)

Stephanie Lynn Paez appeals an order revoking her Post Release 

Community Supervision (PRCS; Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.)

1

, entered after appellant 

admitted violating PRCS and agreed to serve 60 days county jail. Appellant contends 

that her due process rights were violated because she was not arraigned within 10 days of 

her arrest or provided a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing (Morrissey v. 

Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 [33 L.Ed.2d 484] (Morrissey)), and admitted the PRCS 

violation in writing without the benefit of counsel. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

In 2010, appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance in a 

jail facility (§ 4573.6) and was sentenced to three years state prison. Appellant was 

released in 2012 and placed on PRCS supervision with drug terms. After multiple arrests 

for probation violations, appellant was arrested on August 21, 2015 for being under the 

 

1

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

influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), giving false 

identification to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)), and false impersonation (§ 529, subd. 

(a)(3)). Appellant had 16.1 grams of marijuana on her person, admitted smoking "meth 

with some weed," and tested positive for methamphetamine, THC, MDMA, and opiates. 

At the August 24, 2015 probable cause hearing, an administrative hearing 

officer determined there was probable cause that appellant had violated her PRCS terms 

and advised appellant that the Ventura County Probation Agency was recommending 60 

days county jail. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant was informed of her right to a formal 

revocation hearing, her right to counsel, her right to testify and present evidence, and her 

right to call/confront/cross-examine witnesses. (Ibid.) Waiving each of those rights, 

appellant admitted the PRCS violation and agreed to serve 60 days county jail.2 

On August 28, 2015, Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition to 

revoke PRCS and requested that the superior court approve the PRCS modification. 

(§ 3455.) Appellant appeared with counsel and moved to vacate the waiver because it 

was signed without the benefit of counsel. The court denied the motion, approved the 

written waivers and PRCS modification, and ordered appellant to serve 60 days county 

jail with 21 days actual credit. 

Discussion

Appellant argues that her procedural due process rights were violated 

because she was not arraigned within 10 days of her arrest and did not receive a 

Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing. The PRCS revocation procedures here 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. 

 

2

Appellant was not a novice to PRCS revocations. Before the August 2015 arrest, 

appellant had served three flash incarcerations and four PRCS revocations for failure to 

obey all laws, failure to report to probation, drug use, failure to submit to drug testing, 

failure to attend treatment/counseling, and changing residences without notifying 

probation. 
3

Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393 (petition for review filed April 11, 2016, 

S233681). We follow our own precedent. 

Appellant contends that her due process rights were violated because the 

waiver was signed without the benefit of counsel and the probable cause hearing officer 

was not a "neutral uninvolved entity." The record reflects that the hearing officer was not 

appellant's supervising probation officer or the one who reported the PRCS violation or 

recommended the PRCS revocation. Appellant was afforded a neutral hearing officer. 

(See 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].) Nor is there a due process right to counsel at a probable cause hearing 

where, as here, the defendant elects to admit the PRCS violation and waives his or her 

rights in writing. (§ 3455, subd. (a); Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. at p. 489 [33 

L.Ed.2d at p. 499]; People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451, 461.) 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 Moore (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 285, 294.) 

Appellant's assertion that she should have been afforded a court finding on 

the need for continued custody is without merit. Section 3455, subdivision (c) provides 

in pertinent part that "the supervising county agency shall have the authority to make a 

determination whether the person should remain in custody pending the first court 

appearance on a petition to revoke postrelease community supervision, and upon that 

determination, may order the person confined pending his or her first court appearance." 
4

Disposition

The judgment (order revoking PRCS) is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.
Gilbert Romero, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Jolene Larimore, 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., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy 

Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.