it please the court i'm eric we were appearing on behalf of jimmie rene thomas the issue i wanted to present some comments about is the evidence of third party culpability issue i think the court of appeal the california court of appeal reduced the consideration of this issue to whether the circumstances of mr kim bros prior burglary conviction were similar to the circumstances of this alleged burglary i think that's an unreasonable application of the law because that's not what the defendant was trying to prove the element the evidence that the defendant was trying to prove were first of all that mr kim bro excuse me actually lived in the trailer that mr thomas frequent to excuse me second that there was property stolen that was in the ny boe burglary was found there third that mr kimbrell had a similar appearance to the appellant for that there was a prior burglary conviction and if that mr kimbrough disappeared so i think it was unreasonable to merely look at the elements of the prior burglary conviction and say they weren't similar there was actually quite a bit of evidence here that link the defend the alleged third party directly to this case what you want he wanted to introduce through the police officer th police officer can testify about the specific elements that he did live there and that obviously the stolen property was there that link both thomas and kim broke through the the incident also there was evidence that mr campbell had a similar that it's collateral i guess in a sense all evidence of third party culpability is collateral the question is whether that evidence is sufficient to raise the suspicion that this person committed the crime i think if they hadn't had other evidence linking thomas this certainly would have been enough to bring mr kimbrell in for questioning i think in the to the magistrate's findings and recommendations the magistrate said that there was no direct connection between the evidence that mr thomas sought to introduce her lying on the people of the territory of ground versus ignacio again i think that's and then reasonable decision there's direct evidence linking him where he lives where the property issue that he should have been allowed to present this evidence i just wanted to talk briefly also about the insufficiency of the evidence as to the luster burglary that's the second one and the one that's not addressed by respondent in their that a burglary took place she provided no evidence about the identity of the burglar there was a picture of appellant in the van in front of the house with part me well the trays were in the in the yard nearby it seems to me that that's a picture of the cow but it both the federal and california law that establishes his presence with the stolen property without much more and with that i'll reserve the rest of my time and twice on the day he was arrested very next day five times we can place mr thomas at the nih bill residence we can never replace mr kendrick there the and mister thomas when he's arrested is found in possession of property that was tak to not permit this other possibility that mr thomas was not precluded from arguing the fact that kim wrote it mr thomas was not precluded from offering his own evidence that mr kimbrough did it there's no obligation that the police follow some additional lead that they bring in mr kimbrell for questioning there was the police found no evidence tying mr kimbrough to the ny boat house they had more than sufficient evidence to believe that mr thomas who had been there five times who was found in possession of the property who was found carrying out property from then i will house was the person who in fact took the property from that i will house to the trailer that he frequented where precluded from doing so what he was precluded from doing was having the officer testified isn't it true mr kimbrell had a burglary conviction why didn't she check him out why didn't she call him and with respect to the sufficiency evidence the the owner of the van went back got his son came back found defendant in the van with a screwdriver photographed him told him the van belonged to him mr thomas then unloaded the pictures one of th reasonable doubt here that the property that was taken from the dam is the property that came from the shed it's photographed cut it's photographed outside of the van after mr thomas removed from that them mr thomas then while the owner of the van is waiting for police to arrive disappears into the back yard where the shot is located later that same morning the owner of the shed is told the sheriff's elfman she goes back and says all my property is gone the same property that was loaded out on to the some of the same property that is loaded out on the yard is now gone mr thomas was there mr thomas loaded property into the van mr pramod thomas removed property from them we can place mr thomas at the scene when is the last so and if there are no further questions thank you on the second issue first there are the sufficiency of the evidence there's a lot of evidence of being in possession of stolen property receiving stolen property but the charge will burglary the question is whether the being in the possession of the stolen property  submit on that issue your honor with respect to the issue of the third party culpability again it's mr thomas's residence his wife has the property the appellant frequents it i think that that's certainly enough to give argument on ski