Opinion
F079667
02-14-2020
In re STEPHEN R. FEGAN, On Habeas Corpus.
Stephen R. Fegan, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Merced Super. Ct. No. SUF18939)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. Stephen R. Fegan, in pro. per., for Petitioner. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Snauffer, J. --------
-ooOoo-
On March 1, 2019, the superior court denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
On July 23, 2019, appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging that order.
On August 22, 2019, this court filed the following order:
"This court is considering dismissing the appeal in the above entitled appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
"Appellant is granted leave to file on or before 30 days from this order an informal response. The failure to file a response shall be deemed
agreement that the appeal should be dismissed because it was not timely filed."
Appellant did not file a response.
This court concluded that this appeal should be dismissed pursuant to appellant's agreement that the appeal was not timely filed. Therefore, on October 10, 2019, this appeal was dismissed.
On October 23, 2019, appellant filed a motion seeking leave to submit a response to this court's order filed on August 22, 2019. Appellant sent an inquiry to this court which responded that it would be inappropriate to provide appellant with legal advice.
On November 7, 2019, an order was filed vacating the dismissal order, reinstating the appeal and granting appellant an additional 30 days in which to file a response to this court's order of August 22, 2019.
Appellant again did not file a response.
Pursuant to this court's order filed on August 22, 2019, and the order of November 7, 2019, granting appellant additional time to respond, appellant's failure to file a response is deemed to be agreement that this appeal should be dismissed because it was not timely filed.
The appeal in the above entitled action is dismissed.