P.

DISCUSSION

Lee contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated her right to due

process when it ordered her to pay a $1,500 restitution fine under section 1202.4 because

there was no evidence to support the order and the trial court failed to consider the

relevant factors under subdivision (d) of section 1202.4 or her ability to pay the fine. She

acknowledges that she failed to raise this issue in the trial court, but contends the

forfeiture doctrine does not apply because her claim is based on the sufficiency of the

evidence. Alternatively, she contends her counsel was ineffective by failing to object to

the fine.

Lee forfeited the claim that the evidence did not support the fine by failing to

object at her sentencing hearing. (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227; People v.

Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 409 (Gamache).) Nonetheless, we will review her

claim on its merits to avoid her ineffective assistance of counsel claim and because the

California Supreme Court is currently considering whether the forfeiture doctrine applies

with respect to booking fees. (People v. Mason, review granted Aug. 29, 2012, S203747;

People v. McCullough, review…