P. v.Hamlin
Before trial, Richard L. Hamlin, Jr. pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine (meth). (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a); count 2.) A jury subsequently convicted Hamlin of battery against a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (e)(1)), a lesser included offense of the charged count 1 crime of inflicting corporal injury against a cohabitant. (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a).) The trial court placed Hamlin on three-years formal probation and stayed imposition of a concurrent 180-day term in local custody for both convictions pending successful completion of probation. The court also stayed all terms and conditions of probation related to the domestic violence conviction, including one to complete a 52-week domestic violence rehabilitation program, pending this appeal. On appeal, Hamlin essentially contends that the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting his statements obtained in violation of Mirandav. Arizona (l966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) because he was subjected to custodial interrogation without first being advised of his rights, and in admitting evidence of a prior incident of domestic violence under Evidence Code[1]section 1109, which he argues is not only unconstitutional, but for which the court improperly weighed the prejudice. Alternatively, Hamlin argues he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in this regard if we determine that the sections 352 and 1109 issues were waived by the failure of his trial counsel to object below on such grounds. Court affirm.
Comments on P. v.Hamlin