People v. Alfaro CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Alfaro contends, among other things, that 1) he did not have a probable cause hearing that complied with Morrissey standards; 2) the PRCS process violates Williams and Proposition 9; 3) the probation officer conducts only “a pro forma, ex-parte interview,” instead of a “fact-finding” probable cause hearing; 4) the officer was not neutral; and 5) the officer did not advise him of his rights. The PRCS procedures here did not violate Alfaro’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, Alfaro 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 case”]; Gutierrez, at p. 402.) PRCS procedures and Proposition 9 parole procedures involve different types of offenders and different procedures. (Gutierrez, at pp. 403-404.) There are valid justifications for the different procedures. (Ibid.) Consequently, “there is no requirement that the PRCS…