P. v. Gonzalez
Defendant, Uriel Gonzalez, purports to appeal from July 20, 2012 post-judgment orders denying his 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.
Comments on P. v. Gonzalez