People v. Hamilton CA3

Filed 7/15/25 P. v. Hamilton CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100425

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE002450)

v.

DAVID ROSS HAMILTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant David Ross Hamilton filed a notice of appeal from a trial court order denying his motion for resentencing under Penal Code1 sections 1170, 1171, and 1172 and Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and claim for relief under the Racial Justice Act (§ 745). We conclude that the trial court’s order was not appealable, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2017, Hamilton pled no contest to one count of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)) and admitted an allegation that the rape occurred during a burglary (see § 667.61, subd. (e)(2)) as well as an allegation that he had suffered a prior strike conviction for burglary (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1192.7, subd. (c)). The court imposed a stipulated sentence of 30 years to life, pursuant to the “One Strike” and “Three Strikes” laws. The underlying facts for the conviction and sentencing-related allegations are not relevant to the instant appeal. On January 5, 2024, Hamilton filed a “Petition for Resentencing Pursuant All Applicable Sections of Penal Code §1170, §1171, §1172, and Assembly Bill 1540 (2021).” The motion referenced several legislative enactments in support of his petition, including Assembly Bill Nos. 256 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and 2542 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.),2 both of which pertain to section 745, which authorizes those contending that unlawful discrimination tainted their criminal trials or sentences to file habeas corpus petitions or postconviction motions for relief (see §§ 745, 1473). On January 26, 2024, the trial court denied the motion, finding that many of the cited provisions did not apply retroactively to preexisting, final judgments such as Hamilton’s, and therefore the court had no authority to recall his sentence or resentence him under those provisions. The court further found that to the extent it did have jurisdiction to consider Hamilton’s petition, “none of the cited enactments alter an indeterminate sentence imposed for rape committed in the course of a burglary, and none