Filed 10/21/26 P. v. Forehand 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D087188
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD294546
v.
ISAAC SEAN FOREHAND,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed.
Jake E. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Isaac Forehand entered into a plea agreement with a stipulated
disposition. Appellant pleaded guilty to stalking with a court order in effect
(Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)) and admitted the on-bail enhancement
(§ 12022.1, subd. (b)).
The court sentenced Appellant consistent with the plea agreement.
The court imposed and then suspended a four-year prison sentence and
granted probation.
In October 2025, the court held a contested probation revocation
hearing. The court found Appellant to be in violation of his probation. The
court imposed a three-year prison sentence.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable
issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review
the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Appellant the
opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded or
attempted to file a supplemental brief.
Appellate counsel has provided a summary of the factual proceedings.
We will incorporate the summary here as a statement of facts for purposes of
background.
“As part of the plea agreement, appellant admitted as a factual basis:
appellant unlawfully, willfully and maliciously and repeatedly followed and
willfully and maliciously harassed [L.D.] and made a credible threat with the
intent to place her in fear for her safety and there was a temporary
restraining order in place prohibiting the described behavior and was out on
bail when the offense was committed.
“At the contested probation revocation hearing on October 3, 2025, the
trial court reviewed appellant’s latest job applications and found that he
applied to unrealistic jobs that did not match his experience. Appellant
2
argued that he had a food handlers license, prior work experience at
restaurants, and numerous applications were sent to entry level positions.
“Jacob [W.], a Transitional Age Youth case manager at TURN
Behavioral Health Services, testified that he was assigned to appellant on
August 22, 2025. His primary role was to help appellant obtain employment,
but appellant had not done so during the preceding seven months and
declined assistance from employment specialists. Although appellant was
expected to contact [Jacob] monthly, he did not contact him in August and
often failed to return his calls. They met in person on September 15, 2025,
and appellant thereafter attended all scheduled appointments. Appellant
reported having difficulty using his phone.
“Appellant had previously changed case managers because their styles
did not fit and told [Jacob] he had difficulty working with female counselors.
[Jacob] characterized appellant as noncompliant throughout his participation
in the program, and the case notes reflected no progress toward major goals
during the preceding seven months. Appellant had been assigned more than
five case managers and had a repeated history of noncompliance. Appellant
had not asked [Jacob] for a list of employers willing to hire individuals with
felony convictions or identified the types of jobs he sought.
“Over appellant’s objection, the trial court found that appellant
willfully violated the terms of his probation by failing to participate in
treatment and obtain employment.”
DISCUSSION
As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738,
3
counsel has identified a possible issue which was considered in evaluating the
potential merits of this appeal.
Whether the court’s revocation based on appellant’s inability to obtain
employment was an abuse of discretion.
We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Appellant in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
4