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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
3