People v. Hamilton CA2/7

DISCUSSION

The sole argument Hamilton raises on appeal is that the trial court was required to apply his excess custody credits toward his one year parole period, resulting in no period of parole. As discussed in more detail below, the California Supreme Court recently considered and rejected this same argument in Morales, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 405-406.

A. Summary of Proposition 47 and Penal Code Section 1170.18 “On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (hereafter Proposition 47), which went into effect the next day. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).)” (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089 (Rivera).) “Proposition 47 makes certain drug and theft-related offenses misdemeanors, unless the offenses were committed by certain ineligible defendants. These offenses had previously been designated as either felonies or wobblers (crimes that can be punished as either felonies or misdemeanors). . . . [¶] Relevant here, Proposition 47 amended Health and Safety Code section 11350. Prior to that amendment, possession of the controlled substances designated in subdivision (a) of that section was a felony. . . . [¶] As…