Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Vivion Deandre Wallace pleaded guilty in 2019 to first degree murder and two counts of deliberate and premeditated attempted murder after firing multiple gunshots from one vehicle into another, causing a death. He admitted personally and intentionally discharging a firearm in the murder and personally using a firearm in one attempted murder. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 62 years to life.
Wallace pursued several postconviction requests. In 2023, the trial court denied his section 1172.6 petition because he was the actual killer and had not been convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. It also denied his habeas petition seeking dismissal of firearm enhancements under section 1385. In 2024, he filed another motion invoking several statutes, asserting innocence, alleging a sheriff's department conspiracy tied to past gang affiliation, and requesting resentencing.
The trial court characterized the 2024 motion as an unintelligible collection of arguments from previously denied motions and writs and declined to recall the sentence under Assembly Bill 600 and section 1172.1. Wallace timely appealed. Appointed counsel filed a brief identifying no arguable issues and requested independent review under People v. Delgadillo. Wallace then filed a supplemental brief after being advised of his opportunity to do so.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal explained that Wende's constitutionally compelled review of the entire record concerns a first appeal as of right when counsel raises no specific issues. Delgadillo held that this process is not required for an order denying postconviction relief under section 1172.6. When the defendant submits a supplemental brief, however, the appellate court must evaluate its specific arguments and issue a written opinion; it need not search the entire record for unraised issues, although it may do so discretionarily.
The court acknowledged that Delgadillo expressly left Wende's application to other postconviction contexts undecided. Wallace's motion technically extended beyond section 1172.6 because it invoked numerous statutes. Even so, the court concluded that Delgadillo's principles could apply because this was not Wallace's first appeal as of right. It therefore evaluated the arguments in his supplemental brief rather than treating independent review of the entire record as compulsory.
Wallace's supplemental brief said trial counsel recommended the plea because he could not win at trial. He also alleged that prescribed psychiatric medication affected his thinking when he pleaded and that counsel told him not to disclose those effects to the court. He asked the court to examine counsel's advice, investigation, and effectiveness and whether medication impaired his ability to waive rights or accept the plea. The court held that these contentions supplied no legal argument explaining why the trial court erred in denying recall and resentencing. Wallace therefore failed to establish error, and the court affirmed the order.
Key Takeaways
- A supplemental brief in this postconviction appeal required evaluation of its particular arguments and a written opinion, not an automatic search of the entire record for additional issues.
- The court applied Delgadillo's principles despite the motion's references to statutes beyond section 1172.6 because this was not Wallace's first appeal as of right.
- Wallace's allegations about psychiatric medication, his guilty plea, and trial counsel's performance did not identify a legal basis for reversing the denial of his resentencing motion.
- The appellate court affirmed the postconviction order without disturbing Wallace's convictions, firearm enhancements, or aggregate sentence of 62 years to life.
- The opinion did not resolve Delgadillo's broader reserved question about Wende's application to every other postconviction context.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between presenting grievances about the underlying plea and demonstrating legal error in the particular postconviction order under review. Wallace's medication and ineffective-assistance allegations were described in the opinion, but the affirmance rested on his failure to connect them to a legal argument for reversing the denial of recall and resentencing.
The opinion also shows how the Third District handled a postconviction no-issue brief outside Delgadillo's precise section 1172.6 setting. It did not announce that every postconviction appeal receives identical treatment; instead, it relied on the absence of a first appeal as of right and followed Delgadillo's guidance by addressing Wallace's supplemental arguments.