People v. Hamilton CA2/2

Opinion

Filed 9/11/26 P. v. Hamilton CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, B345828

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. BA339752)

DAVID HAMILTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kevin P. Stennis, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorneys General, Jason Tran and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________________ David Hamilton petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.75, and the trial court reduced his sentence by 16 years but declined to strike any of his prior strikes. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Facts2 On April 26, 2008, appellant visited the apartment of Debra Tinsley, his former romantic partner. Tinsley’s male friend, Asa Belton, had been staying with her for more than a month. Appellant and Tinsley got into an argument about Belton living there. Appellant threatened Tinsley, at which point Belton interjected that he would not allow appellant to hurt her. Appellant left for a few minutes, and then returned to argue some more. He hit Tinsley, turned around and punched Belton. Belton jumped from his seat and bear-hugged appellant to protect himself. During the fight that ensued, appellant bit Belton’s ear off. 2. Procedural history In 2010, a jury convicted appellant of mayhem (§ 203) and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). It found true that appellant had personally inflicted great bodily injury (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and the court found true that appellant had suffered three prior strikes (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d), 667, subds. (b)–(i)) and three prior serious felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and that he had served three prior prison terms (§§ 667, subd. (a)). Appellant was sentenced to 46 years to 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 These facts are drawn from the unpublished opinion from the direct appeal. (People v. Hamilton (Jan. 13, 2012, B227590).)

2 life, comprised of 25 years to life for mayhem, plus 15 years for the three prior serious felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), three years for the great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and three years for the three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court imposed but stayed a sentence of 28 years to life for the assault. This court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal, but struck two of the one-year prior prison terms and the three-year great bodily injury enhancement, reducing appellant’s sentence to 41 years to life. (People v. Hamilton, supra, B227590.) In 2016, appellant petitioned for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (§ 1170.126). The trial court denied his petition because he was ineligible, and we affirmed. (People v. Hamilton (Apr. 28, 2017, B276323) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2023, appellant became eligible for resentencing under sections 1172.7 and 1172.75. The trial court conducted a full resentencing hearing and struck the remaining prior prison term as well as the three prior serious felony enhancements, reducing appellant’s sentence to 25 years to life. It declined to dismiss any of appellant’s prior strikes. DISCUSSION 1. Pertinent law Effective January 1, 2022, the Legislature added section 1172.75 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3), which renders “legally invalid” any prior prison term enhancement imposed under subdivision (b) of section 667.5 before January 1, 2020, except for those involving a sexually violent offense. (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) If a judgment includes such an enhancement, “the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.” (Id., subd. (c).) Those who qualify are entitled to a full resentencing, at 3 which the trial court “shall apply . . . any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity in sentencing.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(2).) One such change in the law is found in section 1385, subdivision (a), which permits a trial court to strike an allegation or vacate a finding under the Three Strikes law that the defendant has previously been convicted of a qualifying strike offense. (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 529–530.) In deciding whether to do so, the court “must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of [the defendant’s] present . . . and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.” (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.) “ ‘[T]he circumstances must be “extraordinary . . . [for] a career criminal [to] be deemed to fall outside the spirit of the very scheme within which he squarely falls.” ’ ” (People v. Mendoza (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 843, 856, quoting People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 378 (Carmony).) A trial court’s denial of a Romero motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 376.) 2. The trial court acted within its discretion in declining to strike appellant’s strikes Appellant has not met his burden of showing that the trial court’s sentencing decision was “irrational or arbitrary.” (See Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 377.) In refusing to strike appellant’s prior strikes, the trial court observed the “egregious”

4 nature of the case and of some of appellant’s prior convictions, which included two assaults by means likely to produce great bodily injury and a manslaughter. It was reasonable for the trial court to conclude on this basis that appellant fell within the spirit of the Three Strikes law. To argue otherwise, appellant points to his age (late 60’s), a stroke he suffered in recent years, and his participation in “many rehabilitative courses” while in prison. Although these may be favorable factors, they do not “manifestly support the striking of a prior conviction” so as to render the trial court’s decision “so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.” (People v. Edwards (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 523, 528, 529.) DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J. We concur:

CHAVEZ, J.

RICHARDSON, J.