P. v. Woodall CA4/1
216 Cal. App. 4th 1221
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Woodall pleaded guilty to attempted possession of a controlled substance for sale and was placed on three years' formal probation conditioned on drug court participation.
- The trial court suspended execution of a one-year prison term and granted probation conditioned on drug court participation; Woodall appeared in drug court proceedings.
- Woodall absconded from the drug treatment program in January 2012 and a drug court order revoked his participation, issuing a bench warrant for his arrest.
- The February 27, 2012 proceeding terminated him from the drug treatment program and revoked probation; Woodall sought an evidentiary Morrissey-style hearing.
- An April 2012 evidentiary hearing found he violated probation due to absconding and his medical needs; the court revoked his probation and ordered execution of the one-year sentence.
- Woodall challenged § 1203.2 as unconstitutional on facial and as-applied grounds, including lack of a sworn oath for arrest warrants and lack of a preliminary probable cause hearing; the court rejected these challenges and affirmed the revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a probation arrest warrant must be sworn. | Woodall argues warrants must be sworn. | Woodall contends 1203.2 permits unsworn warrants. | No; warrant clause not required for probationers; unsworn warrants permissible. |
| Whether Morrissey requires a preliminary probable cause hearing prior to final revocation hearing. | Morrissey requires a separate preliminary hearing. | Section 1203.2 suffices with Morrissey-like safeguards at final hearing. | Section 1203.2 implies a probable cause hearing if there is a significant delay; here remedies satisfied by final hearing. |
| Whether February 2012 hearing violated Morrissey due process. | Procedural deficiencies deprived due process. | Final April hearing cured any defects; no prejudice shown. | No reversible error; no prejudice shown; Morrissey safeguards satisfied. |
| Whether § 1203.2 is unconstitutional on its face or as applied. | Statute inadequately safeguards rights. | Statute balanced liberty and state interests; Morrissey standards satisfied in practice. | Statute constitutional as applied and facially given safeguards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987) (probation warrantless searches/arrests may be allowed due to special needs of supervision)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (two-step due process for revocation with preliminary hearing and final hearing)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (privacy intrusions for supervised release permitted)
- People v. Hawkins, 44 Cal.App.3d 962 (1975) (Morrissey-like due process in probation revocation)