P. v. Dehuff
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.
Comments on P. v. Dehuff