Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
41 California opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2026 20 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2022(See People v. Miracle, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 356 [“[b]ecause [the] defendant did not object to the [restitution] fine at his sentencing hearing, he has forfeited his challenge”]; People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 729 [“in not adducing evidence of his inability to pay” a $10,000 restitution fine, the defendant “forfeited the argument”]; People v. Smith (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 375 , 395 [“a defendant forfeits a challenge to the trial court’s imposition of a restitution fine above the statutory minimum for failing to consider his or her ability to pay if the defendant did not object in the t 2021(See People v. Miracle, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 356 [“[b]ecause [the] defendant did not object to the [restitution] fine at his sentencing hearing, he has forfeited his challenge”]; People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 729 [“in not adducing evidence of his inability to pay” a $10,000 restitution fine, the defendant “forfeited the argument”]; People v. Smith (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 375 , 395 [“a defendant forfeits a challenge to the trial court’s imposition of a restitution fine above the statutory minimum for failing to consider his or her ability to pay if the defendant did not object in the t | 5 | 7 |
People v. Avilagreen2 sentences2022(See People v. Miracle, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 356 [“[b]ecause [the] defendant did not object to the [restitution] fine at his sentencing hearing, he has forfeited his challenge”]; People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 729 [“in not adducing evidence of his inability to pay” a $10,000 restitution fine, the defendant “forfeited the argument”]; People v. Smith (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 375 , 395 [“a defendant forfeits a challenge to the trial court’s imposition of a restitution fine above the statutory minimum for failing to consider his or her ability to pay if the defendant did not object in the t 2021(See People v. Miracle, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 356 [“[b]ecause [the] defendant did not object to the [restitution] fine at his sentencing hearing, he has forfeited his challenge”]; People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 729 [“in not adducing evidence of his inability to pay” a $10,000 restitution fine, the defendant “forfeited the argument”]; People v. Smith (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 375 , 395 [“a defendant forfeits a challenge to the trial court’s imposition of a restitution fine above the statutory minimum for failing to consider his or her ability to pay if the defendant did not object in the t | 5 | 5 |
People v. Miraclegreen2 sentences2022(See People v. Miracle, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 356 [“[b]ecause [the] defendant did not object to the [restitution] fine at his sentencing hearing, he has forfeited his challenge”]; People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 729 [“in not adducing evidence of his inability to pay” a $10,000 restitution fine, the defendant “forfeited the argument”]; People v. Smith (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 375 , 395 [“a defendant forfeits a challenge to the trial court’s imposition of a restitution fine above the statutory minimum for failing to consider his or her ability to pay if the defendant did not object in the t 2021(See People v. Miracle, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 356 [“[b]ecause [the] defendant did not object to the [restitution] fine at his sentencing hearing, he has forfeited his challenge”]; People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 729 [“in not adducing evidence of his inability to pay” a $10,000 restitution fine, the defendant “forfeited the argument”]; People v. Smith (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 375 , 395 [“a defendant forfeits a challenge to the trial court’s imposition of a restitution fine above the statutory minimum for failing to consider his or her ability to pay if the defendant did not object in the t | 5 | 5 |
People v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2026(People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 [defendant forfeited a challenge to the amount of a restitution fine, based on inability to pay, because it was not raised at the sentencing hearing]; People v. Navarro (2021) 12 Cal.5th 285 , 344 [same].) The forfeiture doctrine applies to constitutional arguments based on the Eighth Amendment. 2020(People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 [alleged erroneous failure to consider ability to pay a $10,000 restitution fine forfeited by the failure to object]; People v. Avila (2009) 46 24 Cal.4th 680, 729 [forfeiture rule applies to claim that restitution fine amounted to an unauthorized sentence based on inability to pay].) Here, unlike the defendant in Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 , who created an extensive record showing her inability to pay $220 in assessments and fines, Smith did not object in the trial court on the grounds that he was unable to pay, even though the trial court | 3 | 3 |
People v. Bakergreen2 sentences2020(See, e.g., People v. Smith (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 375 , 395 [“It is well established that a defendant forfeits a challenge to the trial court’s imposition of a restitution fine above the statutory minimum for failing to consider his or her ability to pay if the defendant did not object in the trial court”]; People v. Keene (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 861 , 863-864; People v. Gutierrez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1033 ; People v. Baker (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 711, 720 [claims requiring a fact-specific inquiry are forfeited if not raised below].) Because we are remanding the matter for the court to stri 2020(See, e.g., People v. Smith (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 375 , 395 [“It is well established that a defendant forfeits a challenge to the trial court’s imposition of a restitution fine above the statutory minimum for failing to consider his or her ability to pay if the defendant did not object in the trial court”]; People v. Keene (2019) 14 43 Cal.App.5th 861 , 863-864; People v. Gutierrez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1033 ; People v. Baker (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 711, 720 [claims requiring a fact- specific inquiry are forfeited if not raised below].) Bell’s ineffective assistance claim fails because Due | 2 | 2 |
People v. Johnsengreen2 sentences2025A defendant forfeits a claim of juror misconduct, however, “when defense counsel does not ‘propose additional questions [be asked of jurors], object to any juror’s continued service, or request a mistrial on the ground of juror misconduct.’ ” (People v. Johnsen (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1116 , 1169–1170.) Here, defense counsel did not request that the court ask additional questions of Juror No. 1 or any other members of the jury, nor did counsel raise any objection regarding alleged juror misconduct. 2024(People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 506 [holding that the duty to inquire in such circumstances “rests with the trial court whether or not the defense requests an inquiry”]; People v. Johnsen (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1116, 1169-1170 [holding that a defendant forfeits a challenge to the trial court’s failure to dismiss a juror “when defense counsel does not ‘propose additional questions [be asked of jurors], object to any juror’s continued service, or request a mistrial on the ground of juror misconduct’”].) 21 impartial” is not accurate. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Davisgreen2 sentences2025(People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 616-617 [defendant forfeited claim of error by assenting to the trial court’s response to a jury inquiry and failing to request the alternative responses he suggests on appeal]; People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 877 [defense counsel’s acquiescence in the trial court’s response to a jury inquiry forfeits the claim of error on appeal]; see also People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 802 [“When the trial court responds to a question from a deliberating jury with a generally correct and pertinent statement of the law, a party who believes the court’s r 2022(People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 616-617 ; People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1193 .) Defendant contends he did not forfeit his challenge because the trial court initially responded to the jury’s question without conferring with the parties, thereby denying counsel a meaningful opportunity to object and violating his right to due process. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Dykesgreen1 sentence2025(People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 616-617 [defendant forfeited claim of error by assenting to the trial court’s response to a jury inquiry and failing to request the alternative responses he suggests on appeal]; People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 877 [defense counsel’s acquiescence in the trial court’s response to a jury inquiry forfeits the claim of error on appeal]; see also People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 802 [“When the trial court responds to a question from a deliberating jury with a generally correct and pertinent statement of the law, a party who believes the court’s r | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rogersgreen1 sentence2025(People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 616-617 [defendant forfeited claim of error by assenting to the trial court’s response to a jury inquiry and failing to request the alternative responses he suggests on appeal]; People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 877 [defense counsel’s acquiescence in the trial court’s response to a jury inquiry forfeits the claim of error on appeal]; see also People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 802 [“When the trial court responds to a question from a deliberating jury with a generally correct and pertinent statement of the law, a party who believes the court’s r | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cowangreen1 sentence2024(People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 506 [holding that the duty to inquire in such circumstances “rests with the trial court whether or not the defense requests an inquiry”]; People v. Johnsen (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1116, 1169-1170 [holding that a defendant forfeits a challenge to the trial court’s failure to dismiss a juror “when defense counsel does not ‘propose additional questions [be asked of jurors], object to any juror’s continued service, or request a mistrial on the ground of juror misconduct’”].) 21 impartial” is not accurate. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smitheygreen1 sentence2023(People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 976, fn. 7 .) The People cite cases for the proposition that a defendant forfeits a challenge to the trial court’s answer to a jury question if the defendant does not object to the answer. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Abilezgreen1 sentence2023(People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 521, fn. 12 .) Cress does not argue that the prosecution was limited to those theories on which the jury was instructed at trial. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kellygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Serranogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Rangelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Frandsengreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Reyesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Villalobosgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Walkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Planavskygreen1 sentence2023(See Panozo, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 840 [no forfeiture where the defendant “does not challenge the manner in which the trial court exercised its sentencing discretion but rather its apparent misapprehension of statutory sentencing obligations”]; but see Planavsky, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1310–1312 [holding that a defendant forfeits a claim under former Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051 if the defendant did not raise the possibility of a drug commitment to the trial court].) Notably, the initial showing need not be made by the defendant; the showing could be made by the prose | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Scott
green
2 sentences2024(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353 ; People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1100-1102 .) The objection must be “sufficiently specific” so as “to give the trial court a meaningful opportunity to correct any sentencing errors.” (People v. De Soto (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1, 8-9 .) However, “the objection will 6 be deemed preserved if, despite inadequate phrasing, the record shows that the court understood the issue presented.” (People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 290 .) Generally, under section 1192.5, a defendant may withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence gre 2023And the defendant need not specifically request application of the lower term presumption if the record shows youth contributed to commission of the underlying offense. 13 It is true that “a defense attorney who fails to adequately understand the available sentencing alternatives, promote their proper application, or pursue the most advantageous disposition for his client may be found incompetent.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351 .) However, on the record in this case, appellant cannot demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. | 4 | 2016–2024 |
People v. Dueñas
green
2 sentences2021Montelongo Also Forfeited His Challenge to the Assessments Under Section 1465.8 and Government Code Section 70373 Section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), provides, in part: “To assist in funding court operations, an assessment of forty dollars ($40) shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense.” Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1), provides, in part: “To ensure and maintain adequate funding for court facilities, an assessment shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense . . . in the amount of thirty dollars ($30) for each misdemeanor or felony.” In Dueña 2020(People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 [alleged erroneous failure to consider ability to pay a $10,000 restitution fine forfeited by the failure to object]; People v. Avila (2009) 46 24 Cal.4th 680, 729 [forfeiture rule applies to claim that restitution fine amounted to an unauthorized sentence based on inability to pay].) Here, unlike the defendant in Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 , who created an extensive record showing her inability to pay $220 in assessments and fines, Smith did not object in the trial court on the grounds that he was unable to pay, even though the trial court | 3 | 2020–2021 |
People v. Demetrulias
green
2 sentences2026(People v. Demetrulias (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1, 20-21 .) This principle applies equally to the admission of expert witness testimony. 2026(People v. Demetrulias (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1 , 20–21.) 2. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
People v. McCullough
green
2 sentences2026Because Velasquez refused to participate in the probation interview, the probation officer’s report contains no information regarding Velasquez’s financial or physical circumstances at the time of sentencing. 9 make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ” ’ ” (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 .) Thus, a defendant forfeits a challenge to the amount of a restitution fine if that challenge is not raised in the trial court. 2014The defendant must waive the right to a determination by the court of his or her ability to pay and the payment amount by a knowing and intelligent waiver.” 10 Relying on People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 (McCullough), the Attorney General argues that defendant’s failure to object to imposition of the fee forfeited the issue on appeal.4 McCullough held that a defendant forfeits a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of his ability to pay a booking fee if he has failed to object when it was imposed. | 2 | 2014–2026 |
People v. Sperling
green
2 sentences2024(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353 ; People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1100-1102 .) The objection must be “sufficiently specific” so as “to give the trial court a meaningful opportunity to correct any sentencing errors.” (People v. De Soto (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1, 8-9 .) However, “the objection will 6 be deemed preserved if, despite inadequate phrasing, the record shows that the court understood the issue presented.” (People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 290 .) Generally, under section 1192.5, a defendant may withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence gre 2020(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353 ; People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1100-1102 .) Although defendant argues that he was not adequately advised pursuant to section 1192.5, as we explain below, we disagree. | 2 | 2020–2024 |
People v. Garcia
green
2 sentences2016(People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19 , 26 & fn. 6; People v. Garcia (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1218 .) “[T]he ‘unauthorized sentence’ concept constitutes a narrow exception to the general requirement that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. [Citations.]” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 .) “[A] sentence is generally ‘unauthorized’ where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.” (Ibid.) “An obvious legal error at sentencing that is 6 ‘correctable without referring to factual findings in t 2016(People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19 , 26 & fn. 6; People v. Garcia (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1218 .) “ ‘[T]he “unauthorized sentence” concept constitutes a narrow exception to the general requirement that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Anderson, supra, at p. 26 .) A sentence is unauthorized where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the 5 particular case. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2016(People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19 , 26 & fn. 6; People v. Garcia (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1218 .) “[T]he ‘unauthorized sentence’ concept constitutes a narrow exception to the general requirement that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. [Citations.]” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 .) “[A] sentence is generally ‘unauthorized’ where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.” (Ibid.) “An obvious legal error at sentencing that is 6 ‘correctable without referring to factual findings in t 2016(People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19 , 26 & fn. 6; People v. Garcia (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1218 .) “ ‘[T]he “unauthorized sentence” concept constitutes a narrow exception to the general requirement that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal. [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Anderson, supra, at p. 26 .) A sentence is unauthorized where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the 5 particular case. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2016(People v. Jackson (2014) 58 Cal.4th 724, 762 ; see also People v. Reyes (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 62 , 76–77.) “Counsel has an obligation to state the ‘specific ground for an objection in order to preserve the issue for appeal.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 77.) Here, defense counsel preserved defendant’s claim of evidentiary error as to the admission of Nancy’s medical condition, but he failed to object to the prosecutor’s question as misconduct. 2015(People v. Jackson (2014) 58 Cal.4th 724 .) The failure to do so will be excused if an objection would have been futile or if an admonition would not have cured the harm caused by the misconduct. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
People v. Houston
green
2 sentences2013"A court commits misconduct if it creates the impression that it is denigrating the defense or otherwise allying itself with the prosecution. [Citation.]" (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1219 .) But a defendant forfeits a claim of judicial misconduct if the defendant fails to object or request a curative admonition in the trial court. 2013"A court commits misconduct if it creates the impression that it is denigrating the defense or otherwise allying itself with the prosecution. [Citation.]" (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1219 .) But a defendant forfeits a claim of judicial misconduct if the defendant fails to object or request a curative admonition in the trial court. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Mesa
green
1 sentence2025(See People v. Lepere (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 727 , 736, 738; People v. Fernandez (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 540 , 560–561; People v. Mesa (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1000 , 1006–1007.) Defendant concedes that counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s references to information similar to CSAAS. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Jenkins
green
1 sentence2025(See People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1043 .) As Madrigal concedes, he failed to object to the prosecutor’s allegedly improper statements. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Cowan
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Cowan (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1159 .) A defendant forfeits a claim of prosecutorial misconduct by failing to object. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
The People v. Fernandez
green
1 sentence2025(See People v. Lepere (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 727 , 736, 738; People v. Fernandez (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 540 , 560–561; People v. Mesa (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1000 , 1006–1007.) Defendant concedes that counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s references to information similar to CSAAS. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. De Soto
green
1 sentence2024(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353 ; People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1100-1102 .) The objection must be “sufficiently specific” so as “to give the trial court a meaningful opportunity to correct any sentencing errors.” (People v. De Soto (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1, 8-9 .) However, “the objection will 6 be deemed preserved if, despite inadequate phrasing, the record shows that the court understood the issue presented.” (People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 290 .) Generally, under section 1192.5, a defendant may withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence gre | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Scott
green
1 sentence2024(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353 ; People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1100-1102 .) The objection must be “sufficiently specific” so as “to give the trial court a meaningful opportunity to correct any sentencing errors.” (People v. De Soto (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1, 8-9 .) However, “the objection will 6 be deemed preserved if, despite inadequate phrasing, the record shows that the court understood the issue presented.” (People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 290 .) Generally, under section 1192.5, a defendant may withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence gre | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Dinh Van Nguyen
green
1 sentence2023“It is well-established that a lack of notice can be forfeited by failure to object, even when it is claimed that it violated due process. [Citation.]” (People v. Nguyen (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 260, 271 .) In particular, a defendant forfeits a claim of lack of notice of a prosecution theory by failing to object at trial. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Lee green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Wende green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Rodrigues
green
1 sentence2022(People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 616-617 ; People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1193 .) Defendant contends he did not forfeit his challenge because the trial court initially responded to the jury’s question without conferring with the parties, thereby denying counsel a meaningful opportunity to object and violating his right to due process. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Moreno green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Williams green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re Sheena K. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Frederick G. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Stanfill green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Doyle v. Ohio green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Tate green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Crandell green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Gray green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Stansbury green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Morris green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Bauer green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Welch green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.