P. v. Buckhana
Filed 6/20/06 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. | B189514 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.BA123867) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lance A. Ito, Judge. Dismissed.
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, Lance E. Winters, and Susan Sullivan Pithey, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, Darryl Buckhana, purports to appeal from a January 20, 2006 post-judgment order denying his sentence correction motion. 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.) We therefore issued an order to show cause concerning possible dismissal of the appeal.
The post-judgment motion argued certain corrections needed to be made in defendant's sentence. The January 20, 2006 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.) There is no merit to defendant's contention that he may appeal because he is merely raising abstract of judgment correction issues. The conclusion of defendant's pro se filing in the trial court demands an entire new sentencing proceeding be held. If there are errors in the abstract of judgment which are resulting in defendant's unlawful confinement, his well experienced and highly regarded appointed appellate counsel can file a habeas corpus petition with this court and it will be promptly acted upon. The point is though that defendant may not appeal from the post-judgment order denying his request he be resentenced.
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER, P. J.
We concur:
ARMSTRONG, J.
KRIEGLER, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Apartment Manager Attorneys.
