Dеfendant, an inmate of San Quentin State Prison, is under sentence of death. He has brought before us a purported appeal from an order sustaining without leave to amend a demurrеr to his “Petition . . . for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis.” The People move to dismiss the appeal аs being “irregular, frivolous, sham and . . . [seeking] only groundless delay in the execution of a valid final judgment,” аnd also move to vacate an order of the trial court staying execution of sentence. It appearing on the face of the record that the purported appeal is from a nonappealable order, we have concluded that for that reason the appeal should be dismissed and that the motion to vacate the ordеr staying execution should be denied without prejudice.
Seeking vacation of the judgment of сonviction, defendant chose to proceed, not by serving and filing a notice of motiоn, but by filing a “Petition . . . for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis” and procuring an order to show cause “why the said рetition . . . should not be granted.” (The order to show cause may properly be regarded as “a notice of motion and a citation to the party to appear at a stаted time and place to show cause why a motion should not be granted.”
Difani
v.
Riverside County Oil Co.
(1927),
The proceeding came on for hearing on July 12, 1948. According to the reрorter’s transcript, after the trial judge had considered the papers filed by each рarty and before he had heard the testimony of a witness for defendant, he said, “The demurrer is sustained, without leave to amend.” By the clerk’s transcript it appears that the only order (other than an order staying execution) made in the matter is a minute order of July 12, 1948, that the “Demurrer to petition ... is sustained without leave to amend.” In the notice of appeal defendant states that he “appeals . . . from the decision of the Superior Court . . . rendered July 12, 1948, sustaining thе demurrer to his Petition. ”
Although the proposition has not been suggested by the parties, it seems obvious that there is no appealable order in this case. A defendant may appeal “Prom any order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party.” (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. 3.) If the рroceeding is viewed, formally, as a motion to vacate the judgment, there is no order whаtsoever which purports to dispose of the motion; it has been neither granted nor denied. If the proceeding be regarded, formally, as one arising upon a petition for a writ, thе order sustaining a demurrer does not finally dispose of the matter; the proceeding is still pеnding until a judgment of dismissal is entered. Speaking generally, “It is well established that no appeal will liе from an order sustaining a demurrer to ... a pleading.” (2 Cal.Jur. 156.) This rule applies to an order sustaining a demurrer to a petition for a writ, and an attempted appeal from such an order will be dismissed.
(Rittersbacher
v.
Board of Supervisors
(1934),
As above indicated, the People also move “To set aside and vacate, and to direct the trial court to set aside and vacate, the order of said trial court heretofore made . . . on or about June 2, 1948. ’ ’ Such order was made on the day the pеtition for
coram nobis
was filed, two days before the
*289
date fixed for execution of sentence. It is “that execution of the judgment of death pronounced in this cause be stayed to and including a final determination of the hearing on said Coram Nobis proceeding herein.” Inasmuch as the purported appeal is from a nonappealable order, jurisdiction of the cause remains in the superior court. (See
Estate of Kennedy
(1900),
For the reasons above stated, defendant’s purported appeal from the nonappealable order is dismissed and the motion of the plaintiff to vacate the stay of execution is denied without prejudiсe to renewing it in the trial court.
Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., and Spence, J., concurred.