People v. Hamelton CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Sep 17, 2025 No. B337286Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant is not entitled to presentence custody credit for time served on a PRCS revocation when the revocation was based on multiple offenses, rather than solely on the conduct underlying the current conviction.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying custody credit for time served on a PRCS revocation when the revocation was based on multiple arrests, only one of which related to the current case.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 2900.5, subdivision (b) provides that “credit shall be given only where the custody to be credited is attributable to proceedings related to the same conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.””

“A defendant is entitled to presentence confinement credit if the defendant can demonstrate that “the conduct which led to his conviction was the sole reason for his loss of liberty during the presentence period.””

“Hamelton’s sentence of 170 days following PRCS is therefore not solely attributable to the present burglary. Accordingly, he is not entitled to the claimed additional custody credit.”

Filed 9/17/25 P. v. Hamelton CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B337286

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 24AVCF00224)

SHAWN ANTHONY HAMELTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa M. Strassner, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Shawn Anthony Hamelton appeals the judgment following his no contest plea to residential burglary. Hamelton contends that the trial court erred by failing to award him credit for time he spent in custody following revocation of his Postrelease Community Supervision (PRCS) in Case No. 2PB02230, which he claims was entirely based on his arrest for the burglary in this case. The People respond that the PCRS revocation was not based solely on the burglary arrest, but rather on Hamelton’s failure to report his arrest for burglary in the present case as well as his arrest for felon in possession of a firearm in Case No. MA084173. We agree with the People, and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

A. Background

People v. Hamelton CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B337286

SHAWN ANTHONY HAMELTON,

PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

KIM (D.), J.

AI Brief