P. v. Comparan CA1/1 filed
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 3/2/11 P. v. Comparan CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION 1 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A127340 GERARDO ALEXIS COMPARAN, Defendant and Appellant. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 4-161675-4) Defendant Gerardo Alexis Comparan was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 22 years 8 months following his entry of no contest pleas to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a))1 and shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246). He admitted a violation of section 12022.5, subdivision (a), personal use of a firearm, and pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court struck the murder charge (§ 187) and the related use enhancement (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d)). Defendant s counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent view of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to him, result in modification or reversal of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment of conviction and the sentence. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 On January 3, 2009, at approximately 4:43 p.m., Pittsburg police officers responded to a call of shots being fired in the area of Rose Ann Avenue. When the officers arrived at the scene, they found the 32-year-old victim, Xavier Fernandez, lying on his back. The officers observed that the victim had sustained multiple gunshot wounds, including wounds to his chest, arm and leg. The victim was transported to Sutter Delta Medical Center and was pronounced dead at approximately 5:15 p.m. Approximately one hour before the shooting, the victim s brother, Lorenzo was involved in an altercation with Jesus Hernandez. Lorenzo returned home and approximately 10 minutes after the altercation, the victim s family heard gunshots in front of their house. When the family went outside they observed two fleeing vehicles, a tan Toyota Camry or Nissan and a red Toyota truck. When the family went back in the house they once again heard gunshots being fired and observed the same fleeing vehicles. Next the victim s family observed six individuals coming from the same direction where the vehicles had fled. An altercation between the six individuals, the victim and members of the victim s family ensued. One of the individuals, later identified as defendant, displayed a revolver and shot the victim multiple times. All six individuals including defendant fled southbound. Police officers subsequently located one of the vehicles involved in the shootings and discovered that it was registered to Jesus Hernandez. Jesus Hernandez admitted his involvement in the incident and identified the shooter as defendant, 16-year-old Gerardo Comparan. Defendant was located at his mother s residence and went to the police station to be interviewed. Defendant confessed to shooting the victim and also admitted that he was responsible for the two prior shootings from the moving vehicle. Defendant later led police to a storm drain where a .22-caliber pistol was located. Defendant stated that he had placed the gun there after the shooting. 2 The following facts are derived from the probation officer s report. 2 On May 7, 2009, the District Attorney of Contra Costa County filed a complaint that charged appellant with the following violations: Count 1, murder with malice aforethought (§ 187), and Count 2, shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246). The complaint also charged: Count 1, appellant personally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), causing great bodily injury and death. On May 13, 2009, defendant ender a plea of not guilty. On May 14, 2009, a probation report was filed indicating that appellant was incarcerated in Juvenile Hall. On November 10, 2009, appellant withdrew the previously entered plea of not guilty. The prosecution dismissed Count 1, murder (§ 187) with its related use enhancement (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)), and amended the complaint to add Count 3, manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) with personal use of a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a). Defendant entered the following negotiated plea: no contest to Count 3, a violation of section 192, subdivision (a), manslaughter, with the use enhancement (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)); and no contest to Count 2, shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246). The stipulated sentence agreement was for a term of 22 years 8 months in state prison and was imposed. On December 18, 2009, a notice of appeal was filed to the judgment, appealing the sentence or other matters occurring after the entry of the plea pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.304. On December 6, 2010, defendant s counsel filed a Wende brief and did not raise any arguable legal issues on appeal. Defendant was aware of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the Wende brief filing but has failed to do so. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the entire record on appeal. The record does not contain a certificate of probable cause. Absent a certificate of probable cause, a defendant cannot challenge the validity of a guilty plea on appeal. (§ 1237.5; People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 377; People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766.) We find no sentencing errors. The term imposed was in accord with the negotiated plea. The trial court was justified in imposing the restitution fines and other 3 fees. Defendant was represented by competent counsel throughout the proceedings. We find no legal issues that require further briefing and, therefore, affirm the judgment. DISPOSITION The judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. __________________________________ Dondero, J. We concur: __________________________________ Marchiano, P. J. __________________________________ Margulies, J. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
