People v. Penick CA2/5

Opinion

Filed 9/8/26 P. v. Penick CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B348081

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 24SFCF00639)

ZKIA SHANIA PENICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Randy Rhodes, Michael Terrell, and Hilleri G. Merritt, Judges. Affirmed. Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Zkia Shania Penick appeals from a judgment after she pled no contest to one count of driving or taking a vehicle without consent. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced her to a suspended sentence of three years, and placed her on two years of probation. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no arguable issue and requesting that this court independently review the record. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

On September 9, 2024, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with: driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, count 2); false personation (Pen. Code, § 529, subd. (a)(3), count 3); and unauthorized use of personal identifying information (id., § 530.5, subd. (a), count 4). The information alleged that at the time she committed the charged offenses, defendant had been released from custody on bail or her recognizance. (Id., § 12022.1.) It further alleged that defendant had suffered prior convictions as an adult and sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings that were numerous and of increasing seriousness. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2).) On June 9, 2025, defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to driving or taking a vehicle without consent. Defendant submitted a signed plea form, with explanations and waiver of rights, which stated that in exchange for defendant’s plea, she would receive a suspended sentence of three years with two years of probation and 40 hours of community service.

2 On June 25, 2025, the trial court sentenced defendant to three years in county jail, but suspended the sentence. The court placed defendant on two years of formal probation. The District Attorney moved to dismiss counts three and four and the out-on- bail allegation and the court granted the motion. On August 6, 2025, the trial court conducted a restitution hearing and ordered victim restitution in the amount of $39,370.01, plus 10 percent interest per year. Defendant filed a notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On April 27, 2026, counsel filed an opening brief in which counsel did not identify any arguable issues and requested that we follow the procedure set forth in Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441. On April 29, 2026, we notified defendant that appointed appellate counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and she had 30 days within which to independently brief any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments she wanted us to consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.

III. DISCUSSION

We have independently reviewed the record and are satisfied that defendant’s appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with counsel’s responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

3 IV. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM (D.), J.

We concur:

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

MOOR, J.