People v. Nunez CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Nunez contends, among other things, that 1) the revocation of his PRCS violated his right to due process, 2) he did not have a probable cause hearing that complied with Morrissey standards, 3) a 21-day delay before his first court hearing was unreasonable, 4) the procedure used by the probation officer at the probable cause

2 hearing was unfair, 5) the waiver he signed was invalid, and 6) he was entitled to the procedures provided to parolees mentioned in Williams, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th 636. The People object to the consideration of issues Nunez is raising that he did not raise in the trial court. Their objections are well taken. But even on the merits, the result does not change. The PRCS procedures here did not violate Nunez's equal protection or due process rights. (People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393, 402-404; see also People v. Byron (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1014-1017.) After his arrest for violating PRCS conditions, Nunez received a prompt probable cause hearing. (Gutierrez, 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…