Skip to main content

Undoing an entire plea deal

Wiseman v. California

Updated Nov 12, 2026

In brief

Where it stands
Dismissed

Petition denied.

What it’s about
Richard Wiseman asked whether California courts could keep part of his plea agreement after finding a count lacked a factual basis, and whether they could leave his other constitutional claims unresolved as untimely despite alleged state-caused delay.
Who it affects
The order ends Wiseman's request for Supreme Court review but does not decide whether his constitutional claims are valid.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Richard Wiseman, Petitioner v. California
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Supreme Court refused to hear his case (denied review), so it did not decide either question.

Wiseman's petition asked whether California could keep part of a negotiated plea after finding one count lacked a factual basis and reject his remaining claims as untimely.

Question presented

1. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state court to preserve portions of an indivisible negotiated plea agreement after determining that a material count lacked any factual basis, rather than vacating the plea in its entirety and restoring the parties to the pre-plea status quo ante, consistent with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), and Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971). 2. Whether due process and the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel are violated when a court issues an Order to Show Cause identifying prima facie constitutional violations, including false evidence, suppressed discovery, and ineffective assistance of counsel, conducts an evidentiary hearing, grants relief as to one count, yet later declines to adjudicate or remedy the remaining plea-validity and due-process violations and instead denies broader relief on procedural timeliness grounds despite state-created delay and Petitioner ’ s continued pursuit of restoration of the pre-plea status quo ante.

Documents

1

Docket activity

6
  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Nov 11, 2026 · Court records

Show 1 more
  • Brief added: Petition

    Jul 9, 2026 · Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Nov 12, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis