Filed 10/9/25 P. v. Chandrashekar CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

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.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.