People v. Walker CA2/5

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedFebruary 3, 2016
DocketB268122
StatusUnpublished

This text of People v. Walker CA2/5 (People v. Walker 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. Walker CA2/5, (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Filed 2/3/16 P. v. Walker CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B268122

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA180270) v.

DARNELL DAVONE WALKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Morris B. Jones, Judge. Dismissed. Paul R. Kleven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Steven Mercer, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant, Darnel Davone Walker, appeals from an order denying his motion to modify the judgment. We previously affirmed the judgment. (People v. Walker (Feb. 15, 2001, B137988) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant seeks to modify the judgment to convert certain fines into days of custody. We recognized that an order denying such a motion 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 thus issued an order to show cause and placed the matter on calendar. The denial of a motion to modify the judgment is ordinarily nonappealable. (People v. Mendez (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 32, 34, fn. 1; People v. Cantrell (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 40, 43.) Thus, we have no jurisdiction over defendant’s purported appeal. (In re Mario C. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1307 [“a reviewing court is ‘without jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a nonappealable order, and has the duty to dismiss such an appeal upon its own motion’”]; People v. Benavides (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 100, 103 [“We dismiss the appeal as taken from a nonappealable order.”].) The appeal is dismissed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

KRIEGLER, J.

BAKER, J.

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

Related

Jennings v. Marralle
876 P.2d 1074 (California Supreme Court, 1994)
Olson v. Cory
673 P.2d 720 (California Supreme Court, 1983)
People v. Cantrell
197 Cal. App. 2d 40 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
People v. Mario C.
21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 891 (California Court of Appeal, 2004)
People v. Benavides
120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 755 (California Court of Appeal, 2002)
People v. Mendez
209 Cal. App. 4th 32 (California Court of Appeal, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Walker CA2/5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-walker-ca25-calctapp-2016.