People v. Hamilton CA2/7

Filed 7/18/16 P. v. Hamilton CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B266552

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA034537) v.

MARQUES HAMILTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General; Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General; Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Mary Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General; and Carl N. Henry, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________

In 1998, defendant Marques Hamilton received a third-strike sentence of 25 years to life in prison after being convicted of possession of a controlled substance. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) After Proposition 47 was passed, Hamilton filed a petition requesting that his conviction be reduced to a misdemeanor, and that he be resentenced. (See Pen. Code, § 1170.18.) The court granted the petition, resentencing Hamilton to 364 days in county jail with credit for time served, and one year of supervised parole. (See Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subd. (d).) On appeal, Hamilton argues the trial court should have applied his excess presentence custody credits toward his one-year parole period. The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in People v. Morales (2016) 63 Cal.4th 399 (Morales), holding that excess credit for time served does not reduce the one-year parole period described in section 1170.18, subdivision (d). Because Morales resolves the issue before us, we affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 1998, the district attorney filed an information against Marques Hamilton alleging possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). The information further alleged that Hamilton had two prior convictions under the Three Strikes law. (See Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (a)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).)1 Hamilton was found guilty of the offense, and both priors were found to be true. The court sentenced Hamilton to 25 years to life in prison. On February 23, 2015, Hamilton filed a petition pursuant to Proposition 47 requesting that his third-strike offense be reduced to a misdemeanor, and that he be resentenced. (See § 1170.18, subd. (a).) Following a hearing, the trial court granted Hamilton’s petition and reduced his crime to a misdemeanor. The court resentenced Hamilton to 364 days in jail, awarding 364 days of presentence custody credits. The court also ordered one year of supervised parole pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (d). Hamilton’s counsel objected to the parole term, asserting that his excess presentence