People v. Clark CA5

── People v. Clark CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/23/26 P. v. Clark CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F088886 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CM2103) v. KC SCOTT CLARK, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Robert S. Burns, Judge. Solomon Wollack, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Galen N. Farris and Jeffrey A. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Defendant KC Scott Clark was convicted in a court trial of one count of forcible lewd act on a child and two counts of nonforcible lewd act on a child, and he was sentenced to 12 years in prison. His first claim on appeal is that his jury trial waiver was invalid as it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We agree and reverse his convictions on this basis and remand for a new trial. This conclusion renders his other claims of error moot. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A third amended complaint charged Clark with three offenses against E., a female. Count 1 charged him with lewd act on a child younger than 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)(1)).1 Counts 2 and 3 charged him with forcible lewd act on a child younger than 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)). The information further alleged as aggravating circumstances to all three counts that the victim was particularly vulnerable and that Clark took advantage of a position of trust or confidence. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.408 & 4.421.) Clark waived his right to a jury trial on April 10, 2024, and a bench trial took place on June 20, 2024. The court found Clark guilty on counts 1 and 2. On count 3, the court found him not guilty of forcible lewd act, but guilty of the lesser included offense of nonforcible lewd act. The court also found true the two alleged aggravating circumstances. On July 25, 2024, the trial court received a handwritten letter from Clark, alleging that his trial counsel had performed deficiently. The court construed the letter as both a motion for new trial and a Marsden2 motion and set separate hearings for these motions. The court appointed separate counsel to represent him in connection with the motion for new trial. Clark, through his new counsel, filed a motion for new trial on October 29, 2024. The court heard and denied the motion the next day and afterward heard and denied 1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). 2. Clark’s Marsden motion. That same day, the court sentenced Clark to 12 years in prison, comprised of the middle term of eight years on the forcible lewd act count (count 2) and consecutive two-year terms (one-third the middle term) on the two counts of nonforcible lewd act. FACTS I. Prosecution’s case E. was born in August 2005. She was the prosecution’s only witness at trial. Clark’s wife, Marlene,