Court Opinion

ID: 9942203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 18:02:56.750214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:54.264676
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/20/24 P. v. Hamilton CA1/3
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     A169266
 v.
 ARMOND HAMILTON,                                                       (Alameda County Super. Ct.
                                                                         No. 16-CR-013773B)
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION1
         In October 2022, as a result of a plea bargain, Armond Hamilton pled
no contest to a charge of voluntary manslaughter with a firearm use
enhancement. (Pen. Code, §§ 192, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a).) The trial
court sentenced him to 15 years in prison, and it reserved as to restitution.
In October 2023 — pursuant to the parties’ stipulation — the court ordered
Hamilton to pay $7,500 in restitution to the California Victim Compensation
Board to reimburse it for payments made from the Restitution Fund.
Hamilton appeals the restitution order. (We exercise our discretion to
construe his appeal as having been filed after entry of the order for victim
restitution on November 28, 2023. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule

         1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion.                                     (Cal. Stds. Jud.
Admin., § 8.1.)

                                                               1
8.104(d)(2).)) His appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking
this court to conduct an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Hamilton was apprised of his right to file a
supplemental brief; he has not filed anything. We have independently
reviewed the record for arguable issues. Having found none, we affirm.
(Wende, at p. 441.)
                                DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s order for victim restitution is affirmed.

                                        2
                                _________________________
                                RODRÍGUEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
TUCHER, P. J.

_________________________
PETROU, J.

A169266

                            3