People v. Wiseman CA2/6 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/29/24 P. v. Wiseman CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B335635
(Super. Ct. No. 18CR06306)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)
v.
RICHARD WISEMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
On October 24, 2019, Richard Wiseman pled guilty to
inflicting corporal injury on a former spouse by strangulation
(Pen. Code1 § 273.5) and dissuading a witness from reporting a
crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). He was sentenced to three years of
probation. Wiseman also pled guilty to stalking when a
restraining order is in effect. (§ 646.9, subd. (b).) In December
2021, the trial court dismissed the stalking count on the ground
that no restraining order was in effect.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On October 24, 2023, Wiseman filed a motion to vacate his
conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel and newly
discovered evidence. (§ 1473.7.) The trial court denied the
motion on the ground that the attached exhibits do not constitute
new exculpatory evidence.
We appointed counsel to represent Wiseman in this appeal.
After examining the record, counsel filed a brief under People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, raising no issues.
On August 1, 2024, we advised Wiseman by mail that he
had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or
issues that he wished to raise on appeal.
On August 30, 2024, Wiseman filed a supplemental brief
with approximately 100 pages of exhibits. This brief is
incompressible. To the extent it attempts to raise issues of
ineffective assistance of counsel or newly discovered evidence, the
exhibits do not support Wiseman’s claims. If Wiseman is relying
on the belated discovery that the restraining order against him
had expired, that issue was decided in his favor by the dismissal
of the stalking conviction. Wiseman presents no authority
requiring the court to vacate his conviction on the remaining
offenses.
The appeal is dismissed. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14
Cal.5th 216.)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J. BALTODANO, J.
2
Michael J. Carrozzo, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
______________________________
Alice Newman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.