Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. LA050311, John S. Fisher, Judge.
Law Offices of A. William Bartz, Jr. and A. William Bartz, 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, Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
TURNER, P. J.
Defendant, Erwin Daniel Galindo, purports to appeal from a post-judgment order denying his motion to vacate the judgment and set aside a prior felony conviction finding. We noted his appeal may not be appealable. We have a duty to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction on our own motion. (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.) We set the issue of our jurisdiction for oral argument.
The post-judgment motion argued that defendant was not convicted of a felony in case No. LA035603. The post-judgment July 1, 2009 order is not appealable as we previously dismissed his appeal from the judgment in People v. Galindo (Mar. 15, 2007, B196273) [nonpub. order]. (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; see 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) “Criminal Appeals,” § 53, p. 299.) Even if the motion was not one to vacate, it is in the nature of a habeas corpus petition the denial of which 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.) There is no merit to defendant’s contentions we should construe his appeal to be a habeas corpus petition or reinstate his appeal in case No. B196273 which was dismissed over two and one-half years ago.
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, J., KRIEGLER, J.