Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/8/451.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 07:53:23+00:00

Document:
Complaints of a lack of notice and hearing prior to revocation of probation have, until recently, fallen on deaf ears. The established rule has [8 Cal. 3d 455] been that "there is neither a constitutional nor a statutory right to notice and hearing preceding revocation of probation. The federal Constitution does not give such a right. [Citation omitted.] And we do not believe that ... our state Constitution should be held to give petitioner a greater right in this respect than he is accorded under the federal Constitution, for under our law, as under the federal law, probation is not a right, but a privilege [citations omitted]." (In re Davis, supra, 37 Cal. 2d 872, 873-874.) fn. 4 That rule, however, is no longer in accord with federal constitutional due process requirements (see Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 [33 L. Ed. 2d 484, 92 S.Ct. 2593]) and, for reasons similar to those enunciated by Chief Justice Burger in Morrissey, we conclude that it is no longer consistent with our state constitutional requirements of due process (Cal. Const., art. I, § 13).
In Morrissey two Iowa parolees each suffered the revocation of his parole without a hearing upon review of the written report of his parole officer. The Supreme Court considered the traditional views, similar to those expressed in Davis, and noted in departing therefrom that a grant of parole is no longer a mere act of clemency but is now "an integral part of the penological system"; that its purpose is to "help individuals reintegrate into society as constructive individuals as soon as they are able"; that it "serves to alleviate the costs to society of keeping an individual in prison." (Id. at p. 477 [33 L.Ed.2d at p. 492].) The court also noted that as due process considerations are no longer deemed to turn upon whether a governmental benefit is to be characterized as a "right" or a "privilege" (see [8 Cal. 3d 456] Graham v. Richardson (1971) 403 U.S. 365, 374 [29 L. Ed. 2d 534, 543, 91 S.Ct. 1848]), the questions to be resolved were whether the nature of the interest being protected in revocation proceedings is such that some procedural processes should be accorded the parolee consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment and, if so, what minimal procedural safeguards in these circumstances are necessary.
The court likened the initial proceedings to a preliminary hearing for the determination of "probable cause or reasonable ground" to believe that a parole violation has occurred, and stated that "due process would seem to require that some minimal inquiry be conducted at or reasonably near the place of the alleged parole violation or arrest and as promptly as convenient after arrest while information is fresh and sources are available." (Id. at p. 485 [33 L.Ed.2d at p. 496].) The determination need not be made by a judicial officer, but could be made by some qualified person such as a parole officer who was not directly involved in the case. The initial hearing need not be formal, but the parolee must be given notice of the time, place and purpose thereof, and of the alleged parole violations. At the hearing the parolee is entitled to appear and speak personally in [8 Cal. 3d 457] his own behalf, and bring and present letters, documents and other persons who can give relevant information to the hearing officer. Adverse witnesses are to be made available for questioning by the parolee except when the hearing officer determines that an informant would be subject to risk of harm if his identity were disclosed. The hearing officer must make a summary or digest of the proceedings and must determine if there exists probable cause to hold the parolee for revocation proceedings against him. The court stated that as in Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S. 254, 271 [25 L. Ed. 2d 287, 301, 90 S. Ct. 1011], "the decision maker should state the reasons for his determination and indicate the evidence he relied on" although "formal findings of fact and conclusions of law" are not required. A holding of the existence of probable cause, however, would warrant detaining the parolee and returning him to his place of detention pending further proceedings.
The most obvious procedural distinction between probation revocation proceedings in this state and those discussed in Morrissey is that the former is not an administrative but is a judicial act as provided in section 1203.2. That section provides for some but not all of the minimum due process requirements necessary to conform such proceedings to Fourteenth Amendment proscriptions. Thus it provides in subdivision (a) for the rearrest of a probationer and revocation of probation but makes no provision for a preliminary determination of probable cause to believe that a violation of probation has occurred in order to warrant the detention of a probationer until a more formal hearing is had. Nor does it appear in connection with or at the formal hearing pursuant to proceedings under subdivision (a) that the probationer is assured of written notice of the claimed violations [8 Cal. 3d 459] or, pursuant to proceedings under either subdivision (a) or (b), disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence, or the right to confront and examine adverse witnesses (except where the court finds good cause for not allowing confrontation). The statutory provision thus fails to meet several of the mandatory requirements of due process as set out in Morrissey and as now held by us to be applicable in probation revocation proceedings.
The courts of this state recognized prior to Morrissey that due process requires in probation revocation proceedings at least several of those rights now compelled by Morrissey. In People v. Youngs (1972) 23 Cal. App. 3d 180 [99 Cal. Rptr. 901], imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation. Three years later probation was summarily revoked on allegations by defendant's probation officer of a failure to comply with certain terms of probation. When defendant was arraigned for sentencing his attorney raised the issue of an actual violation of the terms of probation, but after an informal discussion during which no witnesses were heard on defendant's behalf, probation was revoked.
FN 6. The high court stated that the hearing must be made available "if it is desired by the parolee." (408 U.S. at p. 487 [33 L.Ed.2d at p. 498].) There is nothing in the opinion which forecloses a summary resolution of the issue of revocation if an undisputed course of conduct constitutes, as a matter of law, a violation of one or more conditions of parole. Whether a course of conduct and the attending circumstances are factually undisputed thus leaving open only questions of law is a matter as to which the hearing officer may make inquiry. If it appears, for instance, that upon a request by the hearing officer for a preliminary statement in the nature of an offer of proof by the parties the only matter in issue is the legal consequences of an undisputed course of conduct, the hearing officer may, without hearing any witness, rule on the matter. Such summary proceedings could not be used to shift the burden or degree of proof of factual matters if they remain in issue.
FN 8. It is possible, although we cannot so conclude on the record before us, that defendant was given the equivalent of a preliminary hearing on November 18, 1970, shortly after he was arrested. However, he did not attend that hearing.
FN 10. We do not foreclose the possibility that summary revocations other than when the defendant has absconded, particularly if necessary to preserve the court's jurisdiction, will comport with due process requirements.
FN 12. Counsel for defendant in People v. Nelson, post, page 463 [105 Cal. Rptr. 314, 503 P.2d 1322], argues that despite Morrissey's express direction otherwise it is to be given retroactive application. We reject the argument for the reasons set forth in that opinion.
FN 13. The decision is to be effective after June 29, 1972 (also the effective date of Morrissey), and is applicable only to orders which revoke probation or modify it in a manner which places greater restrictions on the probationer's liberty.

References: v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.