Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Isaac Sean Forehand pleaded guilty under a plea agreement with a stipulated disposition to stalking with a court order in effect (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)) and admitted the on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)). Consistent with that agreement, the San Diego County Superior Court, with Judge Polly H. Shamoon presiding, imposed and then suspended a four-year prison sentence and granted probation. The admitted factual basis stated that Forehand unlawfully, willfully, and maliciously repeatedly followed and harassed the protected person, made a credible threat with intent to place her in fear for her safety, acted while a temporary restraining order prohibited that behavior, and committed the offense while out on bail.
In October 2025, the superior court held a contested probation revocation hearing, found Forehand in violation of his probation, and imposed a three-year prison sentence. Forehand filed a timely notice of appeal. His appointed appellate counsel, Jake E. Stanton, filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 stating that counsel could identify no arguable issues for reversal and asking the court to independently review the record. The Court of Appeal offered Forehand the opportunity to file his own supplemental brief, but he did not respond or attempt to file one. The People made no appearance on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal incorporated appellate counsel's summary of the factual proceedings as background. At the October 3, 2025 revocation hearing, the trial court reviewed Forehand's latest job applications and found that he had applied for unrealistic jobs that did not match his experience. Forehand argued that he held a food handler's license, had prior work experience at restaurants, and had sent numerous applications for entry-level positions. Jacob W., a Transitional Age Youth case manager at TURN Behavioral Health Services assigned to Forehand on August 22, 2025, testified that Forehand had not obtained employment during the preceding seven months, declined assistance from employment specialists, failed to make an expected August contact, and often failed to return his calls, although he attended all scheduled appointments after meeting in person on September 15, 2025.
The case manager characterized Forehand as noncompliant throughout the program, and the case notes reflected no progress toward major goals during the preceding seven months; Forehand had been assigned more than five case managers and had a repeated history of noncompliance. Over Forehand's objection, the trial court found that he willfully violated the terms of his probation by failing to participate in treatment and obtain employment. Counsel identified as a possible issue whether revocation based on inability to obtain employment was an abuse of discretion. After independently reviewing the record for error as required by Wende and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, the Court of Appeal stated that it had not discovered any arguable issues for reversal and that competent counsel had represented Forehand. The judgment is affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A suspended four-year sentence and probation under Forehand's stipulated plea agreement ended with a three-year prison sentence after the superior court found a probation violation at a contested October 2025 hearing.
- The trial court's revocation finding rested on willful failures to participate in treatment and obtain employment, supported by case-manager testimony about seven months of noncompliance, not solely on the absence of a job.
- Appellate counsel identified a possible abuse-of-discretion issue concerning revocation based on inability to obtain employment, but the appellate court found no arguable issue for reversal after its independent Wende and Anders review.
- Forehand received an opportunity to submit his own supplemental brief but did not respond or attempt to file one, and the People did not appear on appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an unpublished decision and expressly found that Forehand had competent appellate counsel.
Why It Matters
The decision documents the appellate court's performance of the independent record review required when appointed counsel files a Wende brief and identifies no arguable basis for reversal. Counsel's identification of a potential employment-related abuse-of-discretion question assisted that review, but it did not produce a separate sustained analysis of the revocation evidence or any finding of error. The court's stated conclusion was simply that independent review disclosed no arguable issues for reversal and that Forehand received competent representation.
The affirmed disposition leaves the superior court's probation revocation and three-year prison sentence intact. The opinion does not announce a new rule governing employment conditions or treatment compliance; its stated result is that independent review disclosed no arguable appellate issues. Because the opinion is not certified for publication, it may not be cited or relied on except as permitted by California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b).