People v. Clark CA2/6

Filed 5/5/25 P. v. Clark CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B337387 (Super. Ct. No. 2006036252) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v.

WILLIE RAY CLARK,

Defendant and Respondent.

Willie Ray Clark appeals an order denying his petition for recall and resentencing filed pursuant to Penal Code section 745, the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (the Act).1 We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the recall and resentencing petition because Clark did not make a prima facie showing of a violation of the Act. On February 24, 2025, appellate counsel filed an opening brief informing this court that she reviewed the record and could not find any arguable issues to raise on appeal. Counsel

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

requested that we send the opening brief to Clark and inform him of his right to file a supplemental letter or brief or suffer dismissal of the appeal. We so informed Clark and he filed a supplemental brief. We have evaluated the supplemental brief and find no issue of merit. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232 [when appellate counsel has found no arguable issues and the appellant submits a supplemental brief or letter, “the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion”].) Accordingly, we conclude that the court properly denied Clark’s recall and resentencing petition, and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 22, 1996, then 17-year-old Clark entered a Laundromat and concealed himself inside the janitor’s room. After the 78-year-old female custodian closed the Laundromat for the evening, Clark sexually assaulted her. A security camera filmed a person entering the Laundromat and concealing himself inside. DNA laboratory testing years later established that Clark was the donor of the fluids obtained from a medical-legal examination of the victim. At a court trial, Clark testified that he had consensual sexual intercourse with the victim that evening. On January 14, 2008, the trial court convicted Clark of forcible rape and forcible penetration by a foreign object. (§§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 289.) The court also found that he committed the criminal offenses during commission of a burglary; personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon or a firearm during commission of the offenses; and engaged in tying or binding the victim. (§ 667.61, subd. (e) [special allegations].) As a one strike offender, the trial court sentenced Clark to 25 years to life for the rape conviction and a consecutive six-year