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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
4