People v. Clark CA2/6

Filed 6/24/24 P. v. Clark CA2/6 Reposted with correct version NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B328101 (Super. Ct. No. 2006036252) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

WILLIE RAY CLARK,

Defendant and Appellant.

Willie Ray Clark appeals an order denying his petition for recall and resentencing filed pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A), and People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 634 (juvenile offender serving de facto sentence of life without parole may petition for recall and resentencing).1 We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the recall and resentencing petition because Clark’s sentence of 25 years to life plus six years (31 years to life) is not the functional equivalent of life without parole. We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

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 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 term for the penetration by a foreign object conviction. Clark received 428 days of presentence custody credit. We affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v. Clark (Dec. 3, 2008, B206382) [nonpub. opn.].) On March 27, 2023, Clark filed a petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A), and People v. Heard, supra, 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 629 (juvenile offender’s sentence of 103-years-to-life imprisonment a de facto sentence of life without parole). Clark asserted that his sentence of 31 years to life as a juvenile offender was the functional equivalent of life without parole. His petition included many