P.

P. v. Moats CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 17, 2013D061408California4,006 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mcdonald, J.

DISCUSSION

A. Forfeiture

Neither Moats nor the People addressed whether, by not objecting during

sentencing, he forfeited his claim that the court imposed an improper two-year, out-on-

bail enhancement. "Ordinarily, a criminal defendant who does not challenge an

assertedly erroneous ruling of the trial court in that court has forfeited his or her right to

raise the claim on appeal." (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880.) Generally, the

forfeiture rule also applies in the context of sentencing; where a trial court does not make

Section 4019 was amended in 2011 in conjunction with the 2011 Realignment Legislation, which addressed public safety. (Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 1; see § 1170, subd. (h).) 3 or articulate a discretionary sentencing choice, the defendant must object to preserve the

issue on appeal. (Id. at p. 881; People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351-354; People v.

Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 302-303.)

However, although discretionary sentencing decisions must be challenged first in

the trial court, the governing rule is that unauthorized sentences can be appealed despite a

failure to object in the trial court. (People v. Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.