P. v. Gonzalez





























Filed 1/25/13 P.
v. Gonzalez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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. URIEL GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

B243066 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA038714)

APPEAL
from orders of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Daniel B. Feldstern, Judge. Dismissed.

Richard
B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

No
appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

>

Defendant,
Uriel Gonzalez, purports to appeal from July
20, 2012 post-judgment orders denying his href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">motion to vacate sentence and habeas
corpus petition. The August 1, 2012 orders do not appear to be
appealable. We have a duty to raise
issues concerning our jurisdiction on our own motion. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th
121, 126; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) We issued an order to show cause and
calendared the matter for oral argument.


The
post-judgment motion argued that defendant did not receive the effective
assistance of counsel in connection with the removal of a spectator. The July
20, 2012 post-judgment order is not appealable on that ground. (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; 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) “Criminal
Appeals,” § 65, pp. 341-342.) Further,
insofar as the July 20, 2012 post-judgment
order may be construed as one denying a habeas corpus petition, it is not
appealable. (In
re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767, fn. 7; In re Hochberg (1970) 2
Cal.3d 870, 876, disapproved on other grounds in In re Fields (1990) 51
Cal.3d 1063, 1070, fn. 3.) We have
considered the views expressed in defendant’s pro se filing. They have no merit.

The
appeal is dismissed.

NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS



TURNER,
P. J.



We concur:

KRIEGLER,
J.

FERNS,
J.href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">*