Filed 5/24/16 P. v. Lovio 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICHARD LOVIO,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B266809

(Super. Ct. No. 2013009607)

(Ventura County)

Richard Lovio 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, the trial court found him in 

violation of PRCS. He 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 2013, Lovio was convicted of possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, 

§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 11377, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to 16 months in state prison. 

On July 8, 2014, Lovio was released on PRCS. 

On February 18, 2015, Lovio was arrested for violating his PRCS 

terms.
2

On February 20, 2015, a probable cause hearing was held before a 

probation officer who found probable cause that Lovio violated his PRCS conditions. 

On February 25, 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition to 

revoke his PRCS. 

On March 12, 2014, Lovio's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the 

petition citing Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (Williams) 

and alleging the PRCS procedure violated his due process rights. On March 13, 

2015, the trial court denied the motion. It found his probable cause hearing complied 

with the due process protections in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 472 

(Morrissey). 

At a PRCS revocation hearing on March 25, 2015, Lovio submitted on 

the violations alleged in the petition. The trial court revoked his PRCS and ordered 

him to serve 90 days in county jail with a total credit of 72 days. 

On June 26, 2015, Lovio was in custody for violating his PRCS 

conditions. On June 29, 2015, he had a probable cause hearing before Probation 

Officer Venessa Meza. Lovio denied the violations, was advised of his right to 

counsel, declined to accept a proposed sanction, and demanded a court hearing. 

Meza found probable cause that Lovio violated his PRCS conditions. 

On July 2, 2015, the Ventura County Probation Agency filed a petition 

to revoke PRCS and scheduled a hearing date for July 16, 2015. 

On July 15, 2015, Lovio's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the 

petition. Citing Williams, Lovio claimed the PRCS revocation process violated his 

due process rights. The trial court denied the motion. 

On July 16, 2015, Lovio appeared in court with his public defender and

submitted on the allegations of the petition finding PRCS violations. The trial court 

found he violated PRCS. It ordered him to serve 150 days in county jail with a total 

credit of 42 days. 
3

DISCUSSION

Lovio contends, among other things, that: 1) the process used to 

revoke his PRCS violated his right to due process, 2) he did not have a probable 

cause hearing that complied with Morrissey standards, 3) the probation officers 

conduct inadequate probable cause hearings, 4) their goal "is to obtain a waiver and 

to move [defendants] as quickly and as cheaply as possible to revocation and jail," 5) 

the probation officers are not neutral, and 6) he was entitled to the same procedures 

provided to parolees mentioned in Williams. 

The PRCS procedures here do not violate Lovio'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, Lovio 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 parole 

procedures are not required to be identical. (Gutierrez, at pp. 403-404.) There are 

valid justifications for the different procedures. (Ibid.) Lovio did not produce an 

adequate record to support his claims about how the hearing officers conduct the 

probable cause hearings. He did not introduce evidence in the trial court to show that 

the hearing officers are not neutral, that their findings are incorrect or unreliable, that 

the procedure was unfair, or 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 his probable cause hearings complied 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.) Lovio 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; see also In re Winn (1975) 13 

Cal.3d 694, 698 [defendant has the burden of showing prejudice].) Lovio submitted 
4

on the PRCS violations at the revocation hearings and served the custodial sanctions. 

"[T]here is nothing for us to remedy . . . ." (Spencer v. Kemna (1998) 523 U.S. 1, 

18.) We have reviewed his remaining contentions and conclude he has not shown 

grounds for reversal. 

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.
5

Donald D. Coleman, 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, Connie H. Kan, Deputy 

Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.