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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

* * * * * * * * * * 
2

 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. 
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 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.