Filed 12/27/17 In re I.H. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Placer)
----




In re I.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

PLACER COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

I.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C084838

(Super. Ct. No. 53004482)

I.H. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) He contends he was deprived of due process because he did not receive notice of the impending section 366.26 hearing, and the error is reversible per se. We dismiss the appeal as untimely.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In light of our disposition, we need not discuss the underlying facts.
The juvenile court entered its order terminating parental rights on March 8, 2017. On May 9, 2017, father, an incarcerated inmate, signed and dated a notice of appeal from the order. The notice bears a file-stamped “received” date of May 18, 2017.
On May 23, 2017, Placer County Superior Court notified father that his notice of appeal had been marked “received, but not filed,” because it was untimely under rule 8.406(a)(1) of the California Rules of Court that provides (with exceptions not applicable here): “a notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after the rendition of the judgment or the making of the order being appealed.”
A staff attorney at the Central California Appellate Program (CCAP) wrote to the superior court, asserting the notice of appeal was timely under the “prison mailbox rule” (rule 8.25(b)(5)) that provides notice is deemed timely if mailed or delivered to custodial officials for mailing within the time period allowed. The CCAP attorney asserted first that, although the 60-day deadline to appeal fell on May 7, 2017, father actually had until May 9 (the date he signed the notice of appeal) because May 7 fell on a Saturday. The attorney then argued the apparent untimeliness of filing after May 9 was the fault of the jail officials’ failure to process the notice of appeal in due time and should not be ascribed to father.
DISCUSSION
Father relies on the CCAP letter to show his appeal is timely. The Attorney General responds that it is untimely, but without addressing the CCAP letter. We conclude the letter does not support father because its first premise is wrong: May 7, 2017, fell on Sunday, not Saturday. This means the deadline for filing the notice of appeal from a March 8 order was not May 9, as the CCAP letter asserts, but May 8. (Rule 1.10(a), (b).) Father’s notice of appeal was signed and dated one day too late. Therefore, even if the prison mailbox rule applies, the appeal is untimely.
The time to file notice of appeal is jurisdictional in California, and a late notice is void. We are therefore without jurisdiction to consider this appeal on the merits and must dismiss it. (Conservatorship of Townsend (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 691, 700-701.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.



/s/
HOCH, J.



We concur:



/s/
RAYE, P. J.



/s/
BUTZ, J.