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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
5