People v. Schamehorn CA1/5

Opinion

Filed 9/21/26 P. v. Schamehorn CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A175489 v. TYLER SCHAMEHORN, (Del Norte County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CF259281)

Defendant Tyler Schamehorn appeals a judgment entered upon his plea of no contest to injuring a cohabitant, fiancée, or girlfriend, a felony. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).)1 Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which counsel raises no issues and asks this court to independently review the record to determine whether there are any sentencing or other postplea issues. Defendant was informed of his right to file a timely supplemental brief, but he failed to do so. We have reviewed the record in accordance with Wende and find no arguable issues on appeal. We thus affirm.

1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory citations herein are to the Penal Code.

1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 17, 2025, a complaint was filed charging defendant with three felony counts: injuring a cohabitant, fiancée, or girlfriend (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 1); criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 2); and false imprisonment by violence. (§ 236; count 3). The following stipulated facts support the complaint.2 In the late evening of October 16, 2025, defendant visited the home of his girlfriend, Sierra O., whom he had not seen in about two weeks. The couple had a few drinks before defendant became upset over a text message Sierra O. received from another man. Defendant began acting aggressively and saying mean things to Sierra O. Among other things, Sierra O. recalled that defendant said something to the effect that he would kill her. Defendant’s rage continued to grow, with defendant even pulling at his own hair. At some point, Sierra O. began recording the incident on her phone. She later shared the recordings with the police. In the recordings, the officers heard the couple’s argument become physical. Specifically, the officers could hear Sierra O.’s yelling at defendant to get off of her as well as “a series of strikes.” Sierra O. acknowledged that she was also hitting defendant in an effort to get him to stop harming her. Sierra O. told the officers that defendant strangled her three or four times. One of those times, she had trouble breathing. She showed them redness and bruising on her neck, as well as a three-inch bruise near her armpit. Due to the incident, she later obtained a restraining order against defendant. When interviewed by the probation department, defendant denied physically abusing Sierra O. He claimed that, in fact, Sierra O. was 2 The facts are taken from the presentence report prepared by the probation department.

2 physically abusive toward him and deserved to be incarcerated or otherwise punished. Defendant admitted shoving Sierra O. but explained doing so only to get her to stop attacking him. Defendant insisted that he would never hit a woman. Defendant also denied having a drinking problem and stated that he would not benefit from supervision because he was innocent. On November 3, 2025, defendant, represented by counsel, entered a guilty plea to count 1. The proposed plea agreement provided that defendant would spend no more than 60 days in jail; he would be placed on felony probation for three years with a suspended three-year sentence; and the remaining counts and a companion misdemeanor case (No. CF259300) would be dismissed. However, on December 4, 2025, after the probation department filed a report that recommended against probation, the trial court found defendant unsuitable for probation and rejected the plea agreement. On December 18, 2025, defendant thus withdrew his plea with the court’s permission. On January 6, 2026, the district attorney filed an information realleging the same three felony counts charged in the original complaint. On January 14, 2026, defendant, represented by counsel, entered a plea of no contest to count 1, injuring a cohabitant, fiancée, or girlfriend (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) after knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving his rights. Under the open plea deal, defendant agreed to a sentence of the mitigated two-year term in prison in exchange for dismissal of counts 2 and 3 and the companion misdemeanor case. The probation department filed a report on January 23, 2026, recommending a two-year prison term instead of probation. The report stated that defendant’s attitude had not substantially changed from the first probation interview. Further, defendant continued to downplay the incident, 3 blame the victim, and downplay his alcohol abuse, and refused to take responsibility for his actions. He also admitted violating rules while in jail by consuming alcohol. At the January 28, 2026 sentencing, the trial court found that defendant’s statements of remorse for, among other things, “making [Sierra O.] feel threatened,” were not credible and that he continued to blame the victim. The court observed that defendant “appears to be full of thinking errors” and would likely benefit from “intensive psychotherapy or therapy of some sort.” The court also expressed concern that defendant choked the victim three or four times—a potentially lethal act—without taking responsibility for his actions. The court then analyzed the criteria affecting probation under California Rules of Court, rule 4.414, and found the unfavorable criteria (including severity of harm, lack of remorse, and inability to comply with reasonable rules of probation) outweighed the favorable criteria (mainly, his lack of criminal record). Ultimately, the court found defendant unsuitable for probation and sentenced him to the two-year mitigated term in accordance with the plea agreement. The court also dismissed the misdemeanor case and the remaining counts. The court imposed a restitution fine of $300 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)); a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373); and a $300 restitution fine, suspended unless parole is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.45). Lastly, the court awarded defendant 209 days of custody credits, consisting of 105 actual days and 104 conduct credits. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on January 28, 2026.

4 DISCUSSION We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) There was a factual basis for defendant’s plea. Defendant was adequately represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings. Moreover, we find no sentencing error, as the trial court appropriately weighed aggravating and mitigating circumstances before finding defendant unsuitable for probation and imposing the mitigated term laid out in the negotiated plea agreement. As such, there are no meritorious issues requiring further briefing or argument. The judgment stands. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

Simons, J. Chou, J.

A175489/People v. Tyler Schamehorn