Does a defendant have to give up his right to a formal hearing to contest his probation violation?

Defendant also relies upon People v. Mosley (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1167. In Mosley, the jury acquitted the defendant of rape, but at the conclusion of the trial, the court nevertheless determined defendant was in violation of his probation because the evidence at the rape trial disclosed he had consumed alcohol. Consumption of alcohol was prohibited by the terms of his probation. But until the evidence was concluded in his rape trial, and the jury was deliberating, the consumption of alcohol had not been charged as a violation of his probation. The court nevertheless relied on the evidence establishing the defendant's consumption of alcohol to revoke his probation. All of that evidence was taken during the rape trial before defendant or his counsel knew that the court would rely on the uncharged consumption of alcohol as a basis to revoke his probation, and thus had no motive or reason to cross-examine with that purpose in mind, or to call additional witnesses. The circumstances in Moseley were thus far removed from the instant case in which defendant was advised of the charge, was told he could have a formal hearing, asked whether he wished to give up that right and admit he had failed to appear in court after being ordered to do so. Defendant expressly waived his right to a formal hearing and admitted the violation.

In sum, the proceedings here did not violate defendant's due process rights. He was accorded "due process safeguards" (People v. Vickers, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 458) equivalent to those due probationers desiring to contest a probation violation in a formal hearing.