People v. Chavez CA4/1

facts and reasons justifying the upper term and any error was harmless. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we conclude Chavez forfeited his claim and, regardless, any error was not prejudicial. Accordingly, we affirm. I. We first address forfeiture. When sentencing issues arise, it is the responsibility of the defendant or their counsel to bring the issues to the trial court’s attention; otherwise, they generally are forfeited. (People v. Neal (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118.) This is because, as our Supreme Court has stated, “complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on

2 appeal,” as these issues are “easily prevented and corrected if called to the court’s attention.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353, 356.) “‘It is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial court, could have been easily corrected or avoided.’” (People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114.) The People rely on People v. Powell (2011) 194…