People v. Jakul CA4/1

DISCUSSION

A. The Upper Term for Count

We will take the issues in a different order than that followed by the parties. We

deal first with the challenge to the trial court's decision to impose the upper term on

count 6.

Jakul contends the trial court abused its discretion in failing to state reasons for its

decision. We find Jakul has forfeited the issue by failing to object in the trial court. In

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356, the court held that failure to raise an objection

to the trial court's sentencing choices forfeits those issues for appellate review. The court

applied the well-established contemporaneous objection rule to sentencing decisions.

Jakul was represented by counsel and could have objected if there was any

plausible basis to contest the imposition of the upper term for count 6.

This record reflects that the court was well aware that Jakul was a person with a

criminal history dating back to 1985. Jakul had multiple convictions and presented to the

court as a classic recidivist. The failure to object deprived the trial court of the

opportunity to correct any error and deprived the appellate court of a meaningful record

to…