Opinion
F079580
02-14-2020
In re CURTIS DAVIS, On Habeas Corpus.
Curtis Davis, in pro. per., for Petitioner. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Fresno Super. Ct. No. 18CRWR684634)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. W. Kent Hamlin, Judge. Curtis Davis, in pro. per., for Petitioner. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Smith, J. --------
-ooOoo-
Petitioner's petitions for writs of habeas corpus were denied on November 30, 2018, in Fresno County Superior Court action No. 18CRWR684556, and on January 15, 2019, in Fresno County Superior Court action No. 18CRWR684634.
On January 24, 2019, petitioner filed a "Defendant's Motion to Arrest Judgment and New Trial or Overturn Conviction" in action No. 18CRWR684634. Attached to that motion was the order filed on January 15, 2019, denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus in Fresno County Superior Court action No. 18CRWR684634.
The superior court filed the motion as a notice of appeal, which was subsequently given case No. F079580 with this court.
On October 4, 2019, this court filed an order that stated as follows:
"This court is considering dismissing the above entitled appeal because the order it challenges states that it is denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus. An order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not appealable. (People v. Ryan (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 144, 149.)
"Therefore, appellant may file within 30 days from the date of this order, an informal letter brief establishing that this appeal is from an appealable order.
"The failure of appellant to respond or to show that this appeal is taken from an appealable order will be deemed agreement that this court should dismiss this appeal.
"Respondent is granted 30 days' leave to respond to any letter brief filed by appellant."
Appellant never filed any response.
Appellant's failure to file any response to the order quoted above is deemed agreement that this appeal is taken from an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus—a nonappealable order—and that the above entitled appeal should be dismissed.
The above entitled appeal is dismissed.