People v. Whitsitt CA3

Filed 12/30/24 P. v. Whitsitt CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099619

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STK-CR- FDV-2021-0003804, v. STK-CR-FECOD-2022- 0010628) WILLIAM JOEL WHITSITT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant William Joel Whitsitt appeals the trial court’s order denying his pro se motions to vacate his convictions in two cases where he pleaded guilty or no contest to charges of stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9).1 Appointed counsel filed a brief requesting this court’s independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. Separately, Whitsitt filed a supplemental brief. Having reviewed Whitsitt’s supplemental brief, we affirm the order.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND In 2019, C.M. met Whitsitt at a church service and spoke with him briefly. At another service, Whitsitt approached C.M. and asked if she had a problem talking or interacting with him. C.M. did not wish to communicate with Whitsitt. Whitsitt attended a college class with C.M. After the class, he approached her and handed her a letter. C.M. told him that he was not allowed to talk to or approach her, but he insisted on giving her the letter, which, among other things, expressed his desire to be closer to her. Whitsitt followed C.M. around campus. C.M. was afraid of him following, watching, and staring at her. In September 2019, C.M. obtained a restraining order against Whitsitt. He continued to follow her, and she called the police multiple times. He continued to mail letters to her at her residence. The letters made her feel more threatened. An information filed in July 2021 in case No. STK-CR-FDV-2021-0003804 charged Whitsitt with stalking Jane C. Doe (§ 646.9, subd. (a); count one), stalking C.M. while a protective order was in effect (§ 646.9, subd. (b); count two), and four counts of misdemeanor contempt of court for disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4); counts three through six). In November 2021, the trial court found Whitsitt to be mentally incompetent and referred him to competency restoration proceedings. In July 2022, the court determined that he was competent. On July 25, 2022, Whitsitt pleaded guilty to counts two and three. The remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court sentenced him to a term of three years with credit for time served and released him from custody. After Whitsitt was released, C.M. did not see him again, although he had continued to send her letters while he was in custody. In 2021, Luis Haro Olmos, Whitsitt’s roommate, went to C.M.’s church and moved to within eight feet of her. At the