Court Opinion

ID: 9940588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 20:02:49.125844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:15.781241
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/14/24 P. v. Armburst CA4/1

                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          D082174

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCE408542)

 SEAN ARMBURST,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Kathleen M. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.
         Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      Sean Armburst1 appeals from a judgment following his guilty plea to
discharging a laser at an occupied aircraft. His appointed counsel has filed a
brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738 (Anders). We informed Armburst of his right to personally file a brief,
and he has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we
find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      On November 4, 2021, a felony complaint was filed in Case
No. CE408542 charging Armburst with discharging a laser at an occupied
aircraft. (Pen. Code, § 247.5.) At his arraignment hearing on November 4,
2021, he was released on bail.
      At a readiness conference on November 22, 2021, Armburst indicated
he was dissatisfied with his current counsel because counsel suggested he
submit to a psychiatric evaluation, and he requested the appointment of new
counsel. After conducting a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970)
2 Cal.3d 118, 123 (Marsden), the trial court determined current counsel was
providing Armburst with adequate representation and declined to order the
appointment of new counsel. The court further found that a doubt had arisen
as to Armburst’s competency, suspended proceedings, and ordered an
evaluation of Armburst under Penal Code section 1368 to determine his
competency.
      Following the Marsden hearing, Armburst remained released on bail on
the condition that he not possess any weapons and that he waive his

1    The notice of appeal and the opening brief identify appellant as “Sean
Armbrust.” However, the complaint and trial court minute orders refer to
him as “Sean Armburst.” We refer to appellant as: Sean Armburst.
                                      2
Fourth Amendment right to be free of warrantless or unreasonable searches.
Armburst’s home was later searched pursuant to the Fourth Amendment
waiver, a ghost gun was recovered, and a separate case was filed against him,
Case No. CE409748. As a consequence of the search, Armburst lost custody
of his son and his dogs were removed from his home.
      On February 24, 2022, the trial court found Armburst competent to
stand trial based on a report from a qualified medical professional. On
March 14, 2022, Armburst agreed to plead guilty to the charge in Case
No. CE408542 in exchange for the dismissal of Case No. CE409748, and if he
remained law-abiding for one year, the charge in Case No. CE408542 would
be reduced to a misdemeanor.
      At his sentencing hearing on April 12, 2023, Armburst again requested
the appointment of new counsel, this time based on his complaint that
current counsel was refusing to challenge the imposition of the
Fourth Amendment waiver as a bail condition. After conducting another
Marsden hearing, the trial court found no basis for the appointment of new
counsel. Armburst then requested to represent himself, but after a
discussion with the court, he agreed to be represented by his current counsel
for sentencing. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court reduced
Armburst’s charge in Case No. CE408542 to a misdemeanor, suspended
imposition of sentence, granted one year summary probation, and deemed all
fines satisfied. The court vacated all pretrial orders, including the
Fourth Amendment waiver.
      On May 12, 2023, Armburst filed a notice of appeal from the judgment
and a request for a certificate of probable cause. On May 22, 2023, the trial
court issued a certificate of probable cause.

                                        3
                                 DISCUSSION
        Armburst’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth
a statement of the case and statement of facts, urging no grounds for reversal
of the judgment, and asking this court to independently review the record for
error. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identifies the following issue to assist the
court in its search of the record for error: Was the trial court authorized to
impose a Fourth Amendment waiver as a condition of Armburst’s release on
bail?
        We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Armburst on this appeal.
                                DISPOSITION
        The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                  CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

                                        4