People v. Snyder CA2/5

California Court of Appeal

People v. Snyder CA2/5

DecidedMarch 13, 2015

DocketB260959

StatusUnpublished

This text of People v. Snyder CA2/5 (People v. Snyder CA2/5) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Snyder CA2/5, (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Filed 3/13/15 P. v. Snyder CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B260959

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA043498) v.

RYAN ANTHONY SNYDER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Alan B. Honeycutt, Judge. Dismissed. Ryan Anthony Snyder, in pro. per. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant, Ryan Anthony Snyder, purports to appeal from an order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. The gravamen of defendant’s papers filed in the trial court resembles a habeas corpus petition. We recognized the order under review 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.) Hence, we issued an order to show cause and calendared the matter of argument which was waived. The denial of a motion to vacate the judgment is, under our circumstances, nonappealable. (People v. Banks (1959) 53 Cal.2d 370, 378; People v. Gallardo (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 971, 980.) In many respects, defendant’s paperwork bears a remarkable resemblance to a habeas corpus petition. The denial of 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.) Thus, the order under review is not appealable. The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

MOSK, J.

KRIEGLER, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Filed 3/13/15 P. v. Snyder CA2/5 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B260959

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA043498) v.

RYAN ANTHONY SNYDER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Alan B. Honeycutt, Judge. Dismissed. Ryan Anthony Snyder, in pro. per. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant, Ryan Anthony Snyder, purports to appeal from an order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. The gravamen of defendant’s papers filed in the trial court resembles a habeas corpus petition. We recognized the order under review 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.) Hence, we issued an order to show cause and calendared the matter of argument which was waived. The denial of a motion to vacate the judgment is, under our circumstances, nonappealable. (People v. Banks (1959) 53 Cal.2d 370, 378; People v. Gallardo (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 971, 980.) In many respects, defendant’s paperwork bears a remarkable resemblance to a habeas corpus petition. The denial of 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.) Thus, the order under review is not appealable. The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

MOSK, J.

KRIEGLER, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Snyder CA2/5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-snyder-ca25-calctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack