P. v. Buckhana
Filed 4/13/06 P. v. Buckhana CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRYL WAYNE BUCKHANA, Defendant and Appellant. | B186617 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA123867) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lance A. Ito, Judge. Dismissed.
Johnson & Barnes and Cheryl Barnes Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Keller, and Jack Newman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, Darryl Wayne Buckhana, purports to appeal from the denial of a post judgment motion filed on September 23, 2005, for correction of a sentence. On January 9, 1998, pursuant to this court's remittitur, all of defendant's presentence credits were vacated. (People v. Buckhana (Aug. 7, 1997, B105774) nonpub. opn.].) Defendant did not appeal from the January 9, 1998 order. Defendant could have appealed from the January 9, 1998 order. Insofar as defendant challenges the January 9, 1998 order, he may not do so. (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.) Defendant also argued that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was assessing an improper restitution fine. The gravamen of that issue, as raised in the sentence correction motion, is in the nature of a habeas corpus petition. The denial of a habeas corpus petition 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.) In the event defendant has any non-defaulted jurisdictional or other errors which are cognizable in a habeas corpus petition, he may file one and its merits will be promptly considered.
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER, P. J.
We concur:
ARMSTRONG, J.
KRIEGLER, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.
