Can a petition for writ of habeas corpus be considered a continuation of a criminal conviction?

People v. Enriquez (1967) 65 Cal.2d 746, 750, 56 Cal.Rptr. 334, 423 P.2d 262 ["It matters not whether this petition be treated as a petition for habeas corpus or one in coram nobis "] )it seems exceedingly unlikely that a reasonable voter understood this elusive distinction to have jurisdictional significance in capital cases. As we have previously noted, a challenge to a criminal conviction by means of a petition for writ of habeas corpus can still qualify as "a continuation of that earlier action." ( Maas v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 962, 979, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 571, 383 P.3d 637 ; see Yokley v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 622, 628, 166 Cal.Rptr. 657 ["the habeas corpus proceeding is a continuation of the original trial"].) I see no reason why the electorate would have crafted a different method of appellate review for habeas corpus proceedingsand the majority offers none.