Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. LA035648, Candace J. Beason, Judge. Dismissed.
William L. Heyman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth N. Sokoler and Alene M. Games, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
TURNER, P. J.
Defendant, Rodolfo Chico Anderson, purports to appeal from a June 22, 2007 post-judgment order denying his sentence modification motion purportedly filed pursuant to Penal Code section 1260. 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 and set the matter for oral argument.
The post-judgment motion argued certain corrections needed to be made in defendant’s sentence. The June 22, 2007 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 we should deem his motion to be a habeas corpus petition. The sentence modification motion was not a habeas corpus petition but, if it was, the June 22, 2007 order would still not be appealable. (In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 767, fn. 7; In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal.3d 870, 876.) If there are issues which should be raised in a habeas corpus petition, defendant’s well experienced and highly regarded appointed appellate counsel can file a habeas corpus petition with this or the superior court. The point is though that defendant may not appeal from the post-judgment order at issue.
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, J., KRIEGLER, J.