Filed 6/14/16 P. v. Craig 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

KENNETH RAY CRAIG, 

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B266504

(Super. Ct. No. 2012028786)

(Ventura County)

Kenneth Ray Craig appeals an order revoking his Post Release Community 

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

1

after he submitted on a PRCS revocation 

petition and was ordered to serve 160 days county jail. Appellant contends that his due 

process rights were violated because he 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 2012, appellant was convicted by plea of possession of heroin for sale 

(Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and granted 36 months formal probation. Probation was 

terminated on April 3, 2013 and appellant was sentenced to two years state prison. On 

September 8, 2013, appellant was released from custody and placed on PRCS. 

 

1

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

On May 19, 2015 appellant was arrested for possession of 

methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550) and violation of his PRCS terms 

(failing to report and test, failing to register, failure to obey laws). It was appellant's third 

violation since being released on PRCS. On May 21, 2015, Senior Deputy Probation 

Officer 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 recommended 

180 days county jail. Appellant refused the waiver offer and requested a formal court 

hearing. 

On May 28, 2015, Ventura County Probation Agency filed a PRCS 

revocation petition. (§ 3455, subd. (a).) Appellant appeared with counsel on June 11, 

2015, denied the allegations in the petition, and filed a Williams motion (Williams v. 

Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636) to dismiss on due process grounds. The 

trial court denied the motion on June 18, 2015, finding no due process violation. 

At the June 24, 2015 revocation hearing, appellant submitted on the petition 

to revoke PRCS. The trial court found the allegations to be true, found appellant to be in 

violation of PRCS, and ordered appellant to serve 160 days with 74 days credit for time

served. 

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 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 an ex parte 

interview to solicit a waiver and was not conducted by a neutral hearing officer. The 
3

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 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 trial court so found. 

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 makes no showing 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 the PRCS revocation petition and has already served the 

custodial sanction. (See e.g., People v. Gutierrez, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 399 

[defendant submitted on PRCS revocation petition without contesting 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, Acting, P. J.

We concur:

PERREN, J.

TANGEMAN, J. 
Donald Coleman, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Susan S. Bauguess, 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, Scott A. Taryle, 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General, David A. Wildman, Deputy Attorney General, for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.