People v. Clark CA2/5

Opinion

Filed 7/2/26 P. v. Clark CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B345587

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 24CMCF00949)

DEMETRIUS CLARK,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carol J. Najera, Judge. Affirmed. Linda L. Gordon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant and appellant Demetrius Clark (defendant) was charged with attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code,1 §§ 211, 664) and attempted carjacking (§§ 215, subd. (a), 664). During trial on the charges, the prosecution presented evidence that in May 2024, defendant and an accomplice reached inside victim Steven Pineda’s vehicle at a gas station and began scuffling with him (this was captured on surveillance video). The trial jury found defendant guilty of attempted robbery but not guilty of attempted carjacking. Defendant admitted sentencing aggravating factors, and the trial court sentenced him to the high term of three years with execution of that sentence suspended. The court placed defendant on two years’ probation with conditions requiring service of 18 days in county jail (time served) and completion of 100 hours of community service. Defendant noticed an appeal from the judgment of conviction and this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On May 20, 2026,2 this court advised defendant he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted us to consider. We received no response. We have examined the appellate record and are satisfied defendant’s attorney has complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000)

1 Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code. 2 An initial notice was mailed to defendant at his address of record on February 27, 2026. After this court discovered defendant was in custody, a second notice was sent to his in- custody address.

2 528 U.S. 259, 278-82; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 122- 24; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J. We concur:

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

KIM (D), J.