People v. Rasheed CA2/6
B267298
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 23, 2016Background
- Malik Ali Rasheed pled guilty in 2011 to felony evasion, unlawful taking of a vehicle, and resisting arrest, received a multi-year state prison term, and was released on Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS) in May 2014.
- On July 22, 2015, Rasheed was arrested for possessing methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and burglary tools — his seventh PRCS violation.
- The Ventura County Probation Agency held a probable-cause interview on July 23, 2015, conducted by Senior Deputy Probation Officer Venessa Meza; Rasheed declined to speak and later requested a formal hearing.
- A revocation petition was filed July 28, 2015; Rasheed moved to dismiss on due process grounds (relying on Williams), arguing the probable-cause interview was not Morrissey-compliant and was not neutral.
- The trial court denied the motion; Rasheed submitted on the petition, was found in violation, and was sentenced to 90 days in county jail (32 days credit).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding PRCS revocation procedures used here complied with due process and any asserted defects did not prejudice Rasheed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Rasheed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rasheed was denied due process by an inadequate Morrissey-compliant probable-cause hearing | PRCS procedures used were constitutionally sufficient and comparable precedent supports them | The July 23 interview was a pro forma ex parte interview, not neutral or Morrissey-compliant | Court affirmed: hearing met Morrissey standards; no reversible error |
| Whether the hearing officer was impartial | Agency: hearing conducted by an officer not directly involved in supervision/arrest | Rasheed: hearing officer functioned as nonneutral examiner | Court found officer (Meza) was not supervising PO, arresting officer, or report author; impartiality satisfied |
| Whether PRCS must mirror parole (Prop 9) procedures | Agency: PRCS and parole procedures need not be identical; differences justified | Rasheed: argued parity with parole protections required | Court held different procedures permissible and justified; Gutierrez/Byron precedent supports this |
| Whether any alleged procedural defect requires reversal | Agency: reversal not required absent prejudice and defendant failed to show any prejudice | Rasheed: sought dismissal based on due process defect | Court held defendant failed to show prejudice; he submitted at revocation hearing and already served sanction, so no remedy available |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (established due process requirements for parole revocation probable-cause and final hearings)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 230 Cal.App.4th 636 (2014) (challenged PRCS probable-cause procedures)
- People v. Gutierrez, 245 Cal.App.4th 393 (2016) (upheld PRCS revocation procedures as constitutionally adequate)
- People v. Byron, 246 Cal.App.4th 1009 (2016) (similar holding upholding PRCS procedures)
- In re La Croix, 12 Cal.3d 146 (1974) (reversal for revocation defects requires showing of prejudice)
- In re Winn, 13 Cal.3d 694 (1975) (burden on defendant to show prejudice from due process defects)
- In re Moore, 45 Cal.App.3d 285 (1975) (same principle on prejudice requirement)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (no remedy when defendant already served sanction and nothing remains to redress)