People v. Gutierrez
199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 534
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Orlando Gutierrez was released on Postrelease Community Supervision (PRCS) after a 2013 conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.
- On Feb 14, 2015 he was arrested for being under the influence and tested positive for methamphetamine; a probation officer held an administrative probable-cause meeting three days later.
- Probation filed a PRCS revocation petition on Feb 23; appellant declined probation’s offer to admit violations and requested counsel and a formal hearing.
- On Mar 12 the trial court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss, conducted the revocation hearing while appellant remained in custody, found a violation, and sentenced him to 60 days in county jail with 52 days credit.
- Appellant appealed, arguing violation of due process (timeliness and neutral probable-cause hearing), equal protection (different procedures than parolees), and that Proposition 36 required treatment instead of incarceration for a nonviolent drug possession (NVDP) offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process timing and neutral probable-cause decisionmaker | County (respondent) argued PRCS procedures satisfied Morrissey standards via the administrative probable-cause hearing before probation | Gutierrez argued he lacked a prompt in-court arraignment and a Morrissey-compliant probable-cause hearing before a neutral decisionmaker (relying on Williams) | Court held PRCS procedures here met Morrissey: an informal hearing before a probation officer not involved in arrest satisfied due process; Williams (parole case) is distinguishable |
| Equal protection — parity with parole | State: PRCS and parole are different classes; legislature may treat them differently | Gutierrez argued PRCS subjects similarly situated persons to different, less protective procedures than parolees | Court held no equal protection violation: PRCS and parole supervise different offender classes (nonserious vs serious/violent), so disparate procedures are rationally related to legitimate objectives |
| Application of Williams (parole timelines) | Gutierrez urged applying Williams’ timing rules for in-custody parolees to PRCS revocations | Respondent urged Williams controls parole only and does not apply to PRCS due to different statutory scheme | Court declined to extend Williams to PRCS because PRCS starts with a supervising-agency informal hearing rather than immediate court arraignment |
| Proposition 36 (treatment vs incarceration for NVDP) | Respondent concedes PRCS revocation cannot be applied inconsistently with Proposition 36 treatment requirements | Gutierrez argued he should have been referred to treatment for an NVDP offense instead of jailed | Court remanded for a determination whether appellant is eligible for Proposition 36 treatment; if eligible, jail sentence was error |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (parole revocation due process requirements)
- People v. Vickers, 8 Cal.3d 451 (probation revocation due process need not mirror parole but must provide equivalent safeguards)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (parole-in-custody timing rules for arraignment and probable-cause hearing)
- People v. Coleman, 13 Cal.3d 867 (unitary hearing may suffice in probation revocation)
- People v. Armogeda, 233 Cal.App.4th 428 (section 3455 cannot be applied inconsistently with Proposition 36 treatment requirements)