People v. Wisehart CA2/5
Opinion
Opinion
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Daniel B. Wisehart (defendant) was convicted of ten counts of committing lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)1); three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child by rape (§ 269, subd. (a)(1)); two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child by penetration rape (§ 269, subd. (a)(5)); one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child by sodomy (§ 269, subd. (a)(3)); and three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child by oral copulation (§ 269, subd. (a)(4)). On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his Marsden2 motion because an “irreconcilable conflict” existed between him and his trial counsel such that inadequate representation was likely to result; the trial court improperly denied his Faretta3 motion; the trial court erred in admitting evidence under Evidence Code section 1108 concerning his molestation of another minor, thus violating his right to due process; his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the United States and California Constitutions; and he is entitled to reversal because of cumulative error. We affirm the judgment.