Filed 11/7/25 P. v. Omeara CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E084387 v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI23000959) KEVIN PATRICK OMEARA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael Dauber, Judge. Affirmed.

Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Kevin Patrick Omeara appeals from the judgment entered against him by the San Bernardino County Superior Court.

BACKGROUND In bifurcated proceedings, a jury convicted defendant of first degree burglary in violation of Penal Code section 4591 and the trial court found true three aggravating factors.2 Defendant admitted a strike prior (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)- (i)) and a prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).

The trial court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 17 years, consisting of the upper term of six years, doubled on account of the strike, and five years for the prior serious felony enhancement. Defendant noticed this appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him.

DISCUSSION On appeal, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication.

The brief includes a request for independent review of the record by this court in keeping with the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 and listed four Anders issues: (i) whether defendant's

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 The factors were (i) that the burglary was carried out with planning, sophistication, or professionalism; (ii) that defendant's prior convictions were numerous or of increasing seriousness; and, (iii) that defendant’s prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory.

right to remain silent and his right to counsel were violated; (ii) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to strike his strike prior; (iii) whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to strike defendant's prior serious felony enhancement; and, (iv) whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the upper term for first degree burglary conviction.

Upon receipt of the brief, we offered defendant an opportunity to file any supplemental brief deemed necessary. He did not respond to our invitation.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119–120, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.

We concur: FIELDS J.

RAPHAEL J.