P. v. Jimenez
Court have independently examined both the appellate record and the habeas corpus petition and are satisfied that Jimenezs lawyer has fulfilled his duty, and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Leaving to one side the fact that the order denying Jimenezs motion is not appealable (People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719, 1725-1726), the trial courts ruling is correct Cunningham is not retroactive to cases that were final before it was decided. (Schriro v. Summerlin (2004) 542 U.S. 348, 351-352; and see People v. Amons (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 855, 863-870.) The order is affirmed. The petition is denied.
Comments on P. v. Jimenez