People v. Saechao CA1/1

Filed 2/22/21 P. v. Saechao CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A156556

v. (Contra Costa County KAO HIN SAECHAO, Super. Ct. No. 5-181860-8) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Kao Hin Saechao challenges his conviction for first degree residential burglary. Defendant contends his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by making an unfulfilled promise to the jury regarding evidence it would hear at trial and failing to object to comments made by the prosecution in closing argument. Defendant also argues the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 358. We affirm. BACKGROUND On the morning of July 26, 2018, L.K. left her house in San Pablo, locking both her front door and back door before she left. When she came back later that afternoon, her front door was still locked. After unlocking the door and entering her home, she saw it was in shambles. Drawers had been pulled out, and her belongings had been dumped on the floor. She realized

1

her laptop, walkie talkie radios, checkbook, jewelry, credit cards, passport, paperwork from an old business, and cash were missing. She walked to the back of her home and saw the glass pane closest to the lock of the back door had been smashed. L.K. called the police and told the San Pablo Police Department some of her stolen credit cards had been used. Police obtained surveillance tapes and receipts from the locations where the cards had been used, and the tapes showed defendant using her credit cards. Police then obtained a warrant to search defendant’s home, where they found L.K.’s passport, some of her paperwork, and her checkbook. At the police station, police read defendant his Miranda1 rights and interviewed him. During the interview, defendant told police he used a “sparkplug” to break into L.K.’s home and said “[i]t was wrong” to break into the house. He also admitted selling the laptop and offered to get it back, and confessed to using L.K.’s credit card to pay for a car ride service. Defendant was charged with and convicted of first degree residential burglary.2 (Pen. Code, § 459.) The trial court sentenced him to two years. DISCUSSION Defendant contends his trial counsel was ineffective for several reasons. To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim, a defendant must show (1) counsel provided representation that fell below an