Filed 2/7/25 P. v. Gutierrez CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B337049 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA121454) v. MAYRA GUTIERREZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judith L. Meyer, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On February 16, 2023, the District Attorney of Los Angeles County filed a complaint charging defendant Mayra Gutierrez with sale of phencyclidine.1 (Health & Safe. Code, § 11379.5, subd. (a).) On January 22, 2024, defendant waived her right against self-incrimination and her rights to confront and cross- examine witnesses, to produce evidence and present a defense, to a preliminary hearing, and to a jury trial, and pleaded no contest to the charge. The trial court accepted the plea, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed defendant on formal probation for two years under various terms and conditions.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.

On October 22, 2024, counsel filed an opening brief in which counsel did not identify any arguable issues and requested that we follow the procedure set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende). The next day, we notified defendant that appointed counsel had filed an opening brief that did not raise any issues and defendant had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments that she wished us to consider.

Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.

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

1 In discussing the charge against her, the trial court told defendant that the charge was for transportation rather than sale.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLSIHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM (D.), J.

We concur:

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

MOOR, J.