People v. Clark CA2/6

Filed 7/29/25 P. v. Clark CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B339364 (Super. Ct. No. 2006036252) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v.

WILLIE RAY CLARK,

Defendant and Respondent.

Willie Ray Clark appeals an order denying his motion to modify his sentence to reflect additional custody credits and changes in the law pursuant to the California Racial Justice Act (the Act). (Pen. Code,1 § 745.) We conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion without prejudice because Clark failed to establish error in the calculation of credits and did not make a prima facie showing of a violation of the Act. On May 13, 2025, appellate counsel filed an opening brief informing this court that she reviewed the record and could not

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

find any arguable issues to raise on appeal. She declared that she sent the opening brief and transcript of the record to Clark and informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief or letter or suffer dismissal of the appeal as abandoned. Clark 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 motion 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].)