People v. Shaba CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Shaba recognizes that ordinarily sentencing issues not raised in the trial court are

forfeited on appeal. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 352-353; People v. Gibson

(1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1468.) He contends, however the sentence imposed is

"unauthorized" and thus is not forfeited by failing to timely raise it in the trial court. He

claims the fines imposed were outside the jurisdiction of the trial court. Shaba is wrong

on both points.

Since there is no discussion of the basis of the fines in the record, Shaba speculates

they were both based on an erroneous assumption of the minimum amount. He notes

both fines are divisible by $280, thus the trial court must have erred in its calculations.

The difficulty with Shaba's position, as he recognizes in his briefs, we presume the trial

court was aware of the law and properly applied it, in the absence of a record that

demonstrates the contrary. (People v. Braxton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 798, 814; Denham v.

Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)

At the time of the offenses in this case section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) provided

in part: "(b) In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the…