People v. Guzman-Avalos CA2/8

DISCUSSION

Guzman-Avalos’s only challenge on appeal is against the $1,500 fine imposed by the trial court. He argues the court misunderstood it had discretion whether or not to impose the fine under Vehicle Code section 2800.2. Guzman-Avalos admits his trial counsel failed to object to the fine. However, he argues if his appellate challenge was forfeited, he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We find his challenge is forfeited and he has not sufficiently raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. “We review a restitution order for abuse of discretion. [Citations.] The abuse of discretion standard ‘ “asks in substance whether the ruling in question ‘falls outside the bounds of reason’ under the applicable law and the relevant facts.” ’ ” (People v. Baudoin (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1184, 1191.) “A party in a criminal case may not, on appeal, raise ‘claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices’ if the party did not object to the sentence at trial. [Citation.] The rule applies to ‘cases in which the stated reasons allegedly do not apply to the particular case, and cases in which the court purportedly…