THE PEOPLE v. JATEEN BHATT (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Defendant, Jateen Bhatt, purports to appeal from an order denying what appears to be a habeas corpus petition.   The order appealed from did not appear to be appealable.   We have a duty to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction on our own motion and thus issued an order to show cause re:  dismissal.  (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126;  Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 398.)

An order denying a habeas corpus petition 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.) On the other hand, the order under review may be construed to be one to vacate the judgment.   If so, the denial of such a post judgment 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;  see 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.Criminal Law (3d ed.   2000) “Criminal Appeals,” § 53, p. 299.)   We have no jurisdiction over this purported appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

We concur:

KUMAR, J.^*

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  FN*.  Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

KRIEGLER, J.