People v. Zuniga CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Zuniga 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 procedure used by the probation officer at the probable cause hearing was unfair, 4) the probable cause hearing “was nothing more than a pro forma, ex-parte interview,” 5) Meza conducted the hearing “for the purpose of obtaining an agreement” and not for the purpose of any “fact-finding,” and 6) he was entitled to the procedures provided to parolees mentioned in Williams and Proposition 9. The People object to issues Zuniga raises 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 Zuniga'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, he received a prompt probable cause hearing. (Gutierrez, at p. 402.)

2 The PRCS hearing officers who decide probable cause are neutral decision…