People v. Zink CA2/8 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 10/24/13 P. v. Zink CA2/8
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 EIGHT
    THE PEOPLE,                                                          B244979
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                         (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. VA125229)
    v.
    KRISTA A. ZINK,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
    Michael L. Schuur, Temporary Judge. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
    Melissa J. Kim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    **********
    Defendant and appellant Krista A. Zink appeals from the judgment of conviction
    following a jury trial. We affirm.
    On June 8, 2012, at approximately 11:00 a.m., Sergeant Michael Mileski and
    Deputy Juan Sanchez of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, along with
    several other deputies, executed a search warrant for a residence located on Longworth
    Avenue in the City of Norwalk. Defendant was identified in the search warrant. She
    lived in the residence with two other people. Just before the search warrant was served,
    the deputies observed a man and a woman (later determined to be defendant) leave the
    house in a pickup truck. Defendant was detained a few blocks away in the parking lot of
    a restaurant.
    Defendant was placed in the back of a patrol car and driven back to the residence.
    She told the deputies that her boyfriend and another male were inside the house, and she
    gave them her keys to enter the house. During a search of the residence, four small
    baggies of a substance later determined to be methamphetamine were discovered in a
    master bedroom where defendant’s boyfriend was also located and detained. Defendant
    was read her rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 
    384 U.S. 436
     (Miranda).
    Defendant and the other individual residents of the home were placed under arrest and
    taken to the sheriff’s station. Defendant was read her Miranda rights again. She waived
    those rights and agreed to speak with the deputies. She initially denied knowledge of the
    methamphetamine, but then admitted it was hers, and that she occasionally would sell
    some to friends to help pay bills.
    On July 16, 2012, defendant was charged with one count of possession for sale of
    methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). Defendant pled not guilty. Defendant
    moved to dismiss the information on the grounds there was no evidence showing an
    intent to sell. Defendant also moved to suppress the evidence recovered and the arrest of
    defendant made without a warrant. Both defendant and Deputy Sanchez testified at the
    hearing on the suppression motion. The motion to dismiss was denied, and the motion to
    suppress was granted in part, the court suppressing the cell phone recovered from
    defendant’s purse at the time of her initial detention in the parking lot.
    2
    Trial by jury proceeded in October 2012. Sergeant Mileski and Deputy Sanchez
    testified, as did Aaron Lewis, the criminalist who analyzed the material in the four
    baggies and verified the contents as being methamphetamine. Defendant exercised her
    right not to testify and did not present any defense witnesses.
    The jury acquitted defendant on the charge of possession for sale, but convicted
    defendant of the lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance (Health
    & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed
    defendant on formal probation for one year and ordered drug counseling (Pen. Code,
    § 1210.1). The court also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees. This timely
    appeal followed.
    We appointed appellate counsel to represent defendant. Appointed counsel then
    filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende) in which no
    issues were raised. The brief included a declaration from counsel that she reviewed the
    record and sent a letter to defendant explaining her evaluation of the record. Counsel
    further declared she advised defendant of her right, under Wende, to submit a
    supplemental brief within 30 days. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.
    We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appointed counsel fully
    complied with her responsibilities in assessing whether or not any colorable appellate
    issues exist. We conclude there are no arguable appellate issues. (People v. Kelly (2006)
    
    40 Cal.4th 106
    ; Wende, supra, 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    .)
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
    GRIMES, J.
    We concur:
    BIGELOW, P. J.
    RUBIN, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B244979

Filed Date: 10/24/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021