People v. Rajagopal CA5

Filed 3/18/26 P. v. Rajagopal CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F089095 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR-22-011456) v.

GOPI RAJAGOPAL, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Saul Garcia, Judge. Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Peña, J. and Harrell, J.

A jury convicted defendant Gopi Rajagopal of criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)).1 Defendant’s appellate counsel makes no claim of error and requests our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the relevant facts of the case. Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from him. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. The following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) On October 24, 2022, Marissa V. was walking her dog near her Modesto residence. As she turned a corner in an alleyway, Marissa saw defendant walking up the street. As he walked towards her, defendant was very aggressive and yelled vulgar things such as, “[G]o sit on the N word[’]s D.”2 Marissa continued walking to her home, and defendant followed her onto the porch, continuing to yell the same things. Marissa, feeling threatened, asked defendant to leave and shoved him at least two times when he refused. He did not leave and repeated several times that he knew where she lived and going to kill her and chop her into pieces. Marissa called 911, but defendant did not leave, he walked up and down the street while he continued to yell the same things. Marissa was frightened because defendant did not leave even though police were on their way and because he told her he was on parole, and she did not know what crime he had previously committed.