Filed 10/24/13 P. v. Zink CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
KRISTA A. ZINK,
Defendant and Appellant. B244979
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA125229)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supe rior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael L. Schuur, Temporary Judge. (C al. 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.

* * * * * * * * * *2 Defendant and appellant Krista A. Zink appeals from the judg ment 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 th e Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, along with several other deputies, executed a search warrant for a residenc e located on Longworth Avenue in the City of Norwalk. Defendant was identified in the search warrant. She
lived in the residence with tw o 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 detain ed a few blocks away in the parking lot of

a restaurant. Defendant was placed in the ba ck 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. Du ring 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 individu al residents of the home were placed under arrest and
taken to the sheriff’s stati on. Defendant was read her Miranda rights again. She waived those rights and agreed to speak with the de puties. She initially de nied knowledge of the methamphetamine, but then admitted it was he rs, and that she o ccasionally 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). De fendant 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 suppr ess the evidence recovered and the arrest of
defendant made without a warra nt. Both defendant and Depu ty Sanchez testified at the hearing on the suppression motion. The moti on 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 initia l detention in the parking lot.3 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 bei ng methamphetamine. Defendant exercised her right not to testify and did not present a ny defense witnesses. The jury acquitted defendant on the charge of possessi on 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 impositi on 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 repres ent defendant. Appo inted 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 de claration from counsel that she reviewed the
record and sent a letter to defendant explaining her evalua tion 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 f ile a supplemental brief.
We have examined the entire record and ar e satisfied that appo inted 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.