legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Dehuff

P. v. Dehuff
07:28:2008



P. v. Dehuff



Filed 7/22/08 P. v. Dehuff CA2/5



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE



THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and Respondent,



v.



CHRISTOPHER D. DEHUFF,



Defendant and Appellant.



B207531



(Los Angeles County



Super. Ct. No. PA028453)



APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Shari Silver, Judge. Dismissed.



Murray A. Rosenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.



Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Daniel C. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.




Defendant, Christopher David Dehuff, purports to appeal from a March 14, 2008 post-judgment order denying his sentence modification motion. We noted that such an order may not be appealable and issued an order to show cause concerning possible dismissal of the appeal. We did so because we have a duty to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction on our own motion. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126-127; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) The March 14, 2008 order is not appealable. (People v. Cantrell (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 40, 43; People v. Bowles (1933) 135 Cal.App. 514, 516; see People v. Thomas (1959) 52 Cal.2d 521, 527.) If defendant has a legitimate jurisdictional issue, he may raise it in a habeas corpus petition. There is no jurisdictional question though as to whether the trial court had the authority to impose a $10,000 restitution fine. (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b)(1).)



The appeal is dismissed.



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS



TURNER, P. J.



We concur:



ARMSTRONG, J. KRIEGLER, J.



Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.



Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.



San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com





Description Defendant, Christopher David Dehuff, purports to appeal from a March 14, 2008 post-judgment order denying his sentence modification motion. We noted that such an order may not be appealable and issued an order to show cause concerning possible dismissal of the appeal. We did so because we have a duty to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction on our own motion. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126-127; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) The March 14, 2008 order is not appealable. (People v. Cantrell (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 40, 43; People v. Bowles (1933) 135 Cal.App. 514, 516; see People v. Thomas (1959) 52 Cal.2d 521, 527.) If defendant has a legitimate jurisdictional issue, he may raise it in a habeas corpus petition. There is no jurisdictional question though as to whether the trial court had the authority to impose a $10,000 restitution fine. (Pen. Code, 1202.4, subd. (b)(1).) The appeal is dismissed.


Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2026 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2026 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale