Filed 6/14/ 21 P. v. Pomo CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY JOSEPH POMO,

Defendant and Appellant. H047027 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. F1661450)

Defendant Anthony Joseph Pomo appeals from the judgment entered after a jury

convicted him of residential burglary. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief

summarizing the case but raising no issu es. While defendant was serving his prison

sentence , c ounsel sent him written notice of his right to submit a supplemental brief on

his own behalf

. D efendant has not done so . After defendant’s release, counsel attempted

to communicate with him by sendin g a letter to his last known residence ; the letter was

returned as undeliverable. Our independent review of the record has not revealed any

arguable appellate issue. We therefore briefly describe the underlying proceedings and

will affirm the judgment. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440

– 441 ; People

v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)

Defendant was charged with two counts of residential burglary under Penal Code

sections 459 and 460. At trial, the prosecution presented direct evidence to prove the first

count: security camera footage from the burglarized home . The video showed a

distinctive truck pulling into the driveway, the driver knocking at the fro nt door to2

confirm no one was there , then entering through a side door, and walking around inside

. Law enforcement witnesses testified that the truck was registered to defendant and that

defendant’s booking photo from an arrest in 2014 matched the individual seen in the

security vide o. The homeowner reported that a gun had been taken from a nightstand

,

tools were missing from a truck

, and delivered packages had been stolen. The evidence

for the second count was circumstantial: a couple who was acquainted with defendant

both testifi ed that upon discover ing a small safe was missing from their home, they began

to suspect defendant had taken it

. After t hey texted him to demand he return the

valuables from the safe (which included jewelry and several thousand dollars cash)

, s ome

of t h e items wer e anonymously returned

.

The defense called several witnesses

. One testified defendant was helping him

install carpet on the date of the burglary captured on video ; another witness remembered

seeing him installing carpet but could not recall t he precise date . A woman defendant

lived with ( a friend of the couple who se safe was stolen ) testified that it was actually she

who took the safe.

The jury found defendant guilty on count one and acquitted him on count two

.

The trial court sentenced hi m to the lower term of two years in state prison and imposed

fines and fees. Defendant was also ordered to pay victim restitution of $1,225.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.____________________________________ Grover, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________ Elia, Acting P. J.

____________________________
Danner , J

.

H047027

- The People v. Pomo