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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered 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 issues. While defendant was serving his prison

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

his own behalf. Defendant has not done so. After defendant’s release, counsel attempted 

to communicate with him by sending 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 front door to 
2

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 video. 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 testified that upon discovering a small safe was missing from their home, they began 

to suspect defendant had taken it. After they texted him to demand he return the 

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

of the items were 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 the precise date. A woman defendant

lived with (a friend of the couple whose 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 him 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