People v. Schunke

WHITE, P. J.

The People moved to dismiss an appeal taken from the following orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County: (1) an order sustaining the People’s demurrer to appellant’s petition for a writ of mandate; (2) an order denying appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus; (3) an order denying appellant’s petition for a writ of error

coram nobis.

In support of the motion to dismiss the appeal it is urged that the appeal from the first above-mentioned order is ineffectual because mandamus is an independent proceeding; that the appeal from the second order aforesaid is ineffectual because the order denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus is nonappealable; and that the appeal from the order denying appellant’s petition for a writ of error

coram nobis

is also ineffectual for the reason that the superior court was without jurisdiction to entertain- said petition.

As to appellant’s petition for a writ of mandate, the record reveals that such petition was filed “in connection with his writ of error coram nobis and habeas corpus, ’ ’ directed to the District Attorney of Los Angeles County “for a settlement of petitioner’s writ that was sent to this honorable court over 90 days ago, and the said officer shall appear before this honorable trial court, and show cause why said order should remain in full force and effect, to allow petitioner his legal and constitutional rights, as guaranteed by the federal constitution and the constitution of the State of California, and all the statutes made pursuant thereto; and to compel the said State Officer of the City and County of Los Angeles to show cause why petitioner was not granted an hearing- upon his writ of error eoram nobis, habeas corpus, or, a new trial.’’

In this state, the writ of mandate is an independent proceeding having for its purpose the compulsion of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station

(Sheehan

v.

Board of Police Commi

s

[877]