People v. Cervantes CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Cervantes argues that he did not receive due process of law because his probable cause hearing was not conducted by a neutral hearing officer and was analogous to an early disposition conference. He claims that the hearing occurred too soon following his arrest, precluding him from preparing a response and marshalling evidence. Cervantes contends that the probable cause hearing resembled an ex parte interview designed to solicit a waiver of PRCS rights without sufficient procedural safeguards. The trial court did not err by denying Cervantes's motion to dismiss the revocation petition. The PRCS revocation procedures employed here satisfy constitutional, statutory, and decisional law. The procedures do not violate constitutional principles of equal protection of the law or due process of law. We so held in People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393, 401-405. Cervantes has not presented reasons to depart from our precedent. Moreover, the probable cause hearing officer here was not Cervantes's supervising probation officer and did not arrest him or prepare the PRCS revocation report. (Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S. 471, 485 [probable cause…