Skip to content
Name: People v. Byron
Case #: B262956
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 04/22/2016

Requirement of formal arraignment in the superior court within 10 days of arrest for parole violations does not also apply to postrelease community supervision (PRCS) violations. Two days after Byron’s arrest for her tenth PRCS violation, a hearing officer (not the superior court) advised Byron of the PRCS violation charges (testing positive for methamphetamine) and that there was probable cause for her arrest. A petition to revoke PRCS was filed in the superior court and Byron appeared in court with counsel 13 days after her arrest. The trial court ultimately found she violated her PRCS terms and ordered her to serve 140 days in jail. Byron appealed, arguing that her procedural due process rights were violated because she was not arraigned in superior court within 10 days of her arrest or provided a probable cause hearing that complied with Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471. Held: Affirmed. Morrissey outlines the basic due process requirements for parole revocation. In Williams v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 636, the court held that parolees must be arraigned within 10 days of an arrest for a parole violation and must receive a Morrissey-compliant probable cause hearing within 15 days of arrest in the superior court. (See also Pen. Code, § 3044.) Although Byron’s probable cause hearing two days after her arrest did not occur in the superior court, “there is no requirement that the PRCS revocations and parole revocations use the identical procedure or timeline,” as PRCS revocation proceedings are generally more informal than parole revocation proceedings. (See Pen. Code, § 3455.) The requirement for a formal arraignment in superior court within 10 days of arrest does not apply to PRCS violations. Furthermore, Byron did not show that she was prejudiced by the PRCS revocation procedure she actually received.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: