People v. Chandrashekar CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085241 · 2025-10-09 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN340479
Trial judge: Daniel F. Link
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: O'Rourke (author), Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:39Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defendant's second petition to vacate his guilty plea under Penal Code section 1473.7, finding him not credible. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of the defendant's second petition to vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1). “The court found appellant not credible and denied the motion.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review to the trial court's factual finding of lack of credibility. Instead, the court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and concluded that the appellant had not presented any material raising an arguable issue for reversal, thereby affirming the order without explicitly analyzing the trial court's application of the law or facts under a deferential standard.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and request leave to withdraw when no arguable issues exist.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel who finds no arguable issues. However, it is substantively thin because it fails to articulate the standard of review for the trial court's denial of the 1473.7 petition or explain why the trial court's credibility finding was not legally erroneous, relying solely on the absence of developed arguments in the appellant's brief.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The San Diego Superior Court denied Vinod Rao Chandrashekar's second pro. per. motion under Penal Code section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1) to vacate his 2022 guilty plea to communicating with a minor with lewd intent (§ 288.3, subd. (a)), after a hearing at which it found him not credible. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal reviewed the record and appellant's supplemental brief, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of appellant's second motion to vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1), based on a finding that appellant was not credible. “The People filed an opposition, and the court held a hearing. The court found appellant not credible and denied the motion.”	unclear	correct	unsure The court conducted a Wende/Anders independent review and reviewed appellant's supplemental brief, concluding there were no arguable issues. It did not articulate the governing standard for section 1473.7 appeals (independent review with deference to credibility findings under People v. Vivar) or explain why appellant's listed errors failed, describing them only as undeveloped bald assertions. The trial court's credibility finding after a live hearing would ordinarily receive deference, and the opinion recites nothing suggesting error, but the opinion gives too little detail about the motion's grounds or the trial court's reasoning to confirm the result independently.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal independently reviews the record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent review is not constitutionally required in appeals from postconviction orders; when the defendant files a supplemental brief the court must evaluate the specific arguments raised, and may exercise discretion to review the record independently. The court applied Wende to a postjudgment section 1473.7 appeal without acknowledging Delgadillo or addressing appellant's specific arguments.
missed: People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510 — Appellate courts review the denial of a section 1473.7 motion independently, giving deference to the trial court's factual findings based on live testimony and credibility determinations. The opinion did not state this standard.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible because the court gave appellant more process than Delgadillo requires by independently reviewing the record and reading his supplemental brief, and the trial court's credibility finding after a hearing would ordinarily be entitled to deference. However, the opinion does not cite Delgadillo or Vivar, does not identify the governing standard for section 1473.7 appeals, and dismisses appellant's enumerated claims collectively as bald assertions without evaluating any of them, which Delgadillo requires when a supplemental brief is filed.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 10/9/25 P. v. Chandrashekar CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085241

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN340479)

VINOD RAO CHANDRASHEKAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel F. Link, Judge. Affirmed. Vinod Rao Chandrashekar, in pro. per.; and Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal involves a citizen of Australia who pleaded guilty to a sex offense, communicating with a minor with intent to engage in lewd behavior.

(Pen. Code,1 § 288.3, subd. (a).) The case was delayed proceeding in the Superior Court spanning a time from 2015 through a sentencing in 2022.

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. Appellant was not placed in custody. By 2024, appellant was not in custody nor on parole or probation. In 2024, appellant received a removal order from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He filed a pro. per. petition under section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1). The petition was eventually denied. This appeal is from the denial of the second petition to vacate his conviction. In 2015, appellant was charged with several counts of communication with a minor for lewd purposes (§§ 288.4, subds. (a)(1), (b), 288.3, subd. (a)). In 2022, appellant pleaded guilty to count 3 (§ 288.3, subd. (a)) with a stipulation he would receive two years on probation without supervision by the probation department. Appellant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. In 2023, Appellant filed a motion to vacate his conviction under section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1). The motion was denied in July 2023. In 2024, appellant filed a pro. per. motion to vacate his conviction under section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1). The People filed an opposition, and the court held a hearing. The court found appellant not credible and denied the motion. Appellant appeals from the denial of his pro. per. petition. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We advised appellant of his right to file his own brief on appeal. Appellant has responded with a list of alleged errors. They are largely bald assertions of error without development in the record. We have reviewed appellant’s brief as well as the record on appeal. He has not presented any material which would raise an arguable issue for reversal on appeal.

2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified an issue which was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea. We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented appellant on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying appellant’s motion to vacate his conviction is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3 WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12