People v. Hamilton CA3

Filed 4/26/16 P. v. Hamilton CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C079179

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14F02444)

v.

DOMINIK ANTHOWNE HAMILTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Dominik Anthowne Hamilton was convicted of assault likely to produce great bodily injury and battery resulting in serious bodily injury. On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to find unusual circumstances warranting probation. We shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant and his uncle lived in the same apartment complex as Malissa Nuckles. Nuckles complained to her boyfriend, Keith Campbell, that defendant and his uncle were

1

harassing her. Campbell had multiple verbal altercations with defendant and the uncle, and Campbell did not get along with either of them. Once, Campbell saw the uncle threatening Nuckles with a butcher knife, so Campbell acted like he was going to throw a rock at the uncle. On a separate occasion, defendant threatened to beat up Campbell and charged at him with a baseball bat.

On April 8, 2014, Campbell was walking to Nuckles’s apartment complex to visit her and saw defendant, the uncle, and a third man. Campbell heard defendant and the uncle say, “[t]hat’s him right there. Let’s get [him].” Five seconds later, Campbell heard footsteps behind him.

Fearing he was going to be assaulted, Campbell ran to a nearby cell phone store. Defendant, the uncle, and a third man ran after Campbell. The three stayed outside when Campbell entered the store, and all the men started yelling at each other. The store clerk called the police.