time of the sentencing hearing in California

2024(People v. Cowan, supra, at pp. 49–50; People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, 96 .) To meet that burden, Fish was required to “present evidence of his . . . inability to pay the amounts contemplated by the trial court.” (People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490 .) In determining his ability to pay, the court could consider all relevant circumstances and was not limited “to considering only whether [he] ha[d] the ability to pay at the time of the sentencing hearing.” (People v. Kopp, supra, at p. 96 [in determining a defendant’s ability to pay fines and assessments, it is appropria

2024(People v. Cowan, supra, at pp. 49–50; People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, 96 .) To meet that burden, Fish was required to “present evidence of his . . . inability to pay the amounts contemplated by the trial court.” (People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490 .) In determining his ability to pay, the court could consider all relevant circumstances and was not limited “to considering only whether [he] ha[d] the ability to pay at the time of the sentencing hearing.” (People v. Kopp, supra, at p. 96 [in determining a defendant’s ability to pay fines and assessments, it is appropria

2024(Cf. People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 489 ; People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 859 [constitutional exception to forfeiture rule did not apply to claim concerning failure to obtain express waiver of an ability to pay hearing]; In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880-881 [noting longstanding rule that a constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal proceedings by “ ‘ “failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it” ’ ”].) To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, “the defendant must first show counsel’s perfo

2022(Cf. People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 489 ; People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 859 [constitutional exception to forfeiture rule did not apply to claim concerning failure to obtain express waiver of an ability to pay hearing]; In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880-881 [noting longstanding rule that a constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal proceedings by “ ‘ “failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it” ’ ”].) To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, “the defendant must first show counsel’s perfo

2021(Cf. People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 9 485, 489 [finding the defendant did not forfeit Dueñas argument because it was decided after sentencing]; see People v. Aguilar (2015) 60 Cal.4th 862, 866-867 [the defendant’s failure to object at sentencing to certain fees on the basis of his inability to pay forfeited the challenge on appeal].) Our Supreme Court is now poised to resolve the issues raised in Dueñas, having granted review in People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47 , review granted November 13, 2019, S257844, which agreed with the court’s conclusion in Dueñas that due process re

2021(Cf. People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 489 [finding the defendant did not forfeit Dueñas argument because it was decided after sentencing]; see People v. Aguilar (2015) 60 Cal.4th 862, 866-867 [defendant’s failure to object at sentencing to certain fees on the basis of his inability to pay forfeited the challenge on appeal].) In any case, we are not persuaded the analysis used in Dueñas is correct.

2024(People v. Cowan, supra, at pp. 49–50; People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, 96 .) To meet that burden, Fish was required to “present evidence of his . . . inability to pay the amounts contemplated by the trial court.” (People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490 .) In determining his ability to pay, the court could consider all relevant circumstances and was not limited “to considering only whether [he] ha[d] the ability to pay at the time of the sentencing hearing.” (People v. Kopp, supra, at p. 96 [in determining a defendant’s ability to pay fines and assessments, it is appropria

2024(Cf. People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 489 ; People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 859 [constitutional exception to forfeiture rule did not apply to claim concerning failure to obtain express waiver of an ability to pay hearing]; In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880-881 [noting longstanding rule that a constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal proceedings by “ ‘ “failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it” ’ ”].) To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, “the defendant must first show counsel’s perfo

2024(Cf. People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 489 ; People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 859 [constitutional exception to forfeiture rule did not apply to claim concerning failure to obtain express waiver of an ability to pay hearing]; In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880-881 [noting longstanding rule that a constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal proceedings by “ ‘ “failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it” ’ ”].) To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, “the defendant must first show counsel’s perfo

2022(Cf. People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 489 ; People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 859 [constitutional exception to forfeiture rule did not apply to claim concerning failure to obtain express waiver of an ability to pay hearing]; In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880-881 [noting longstanding rule that a constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal proceedings by “ ‘ “failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it” ’ ”].) To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, “the defendant must first show counsel’s perfo

2024(See People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1229 [“remand is unnecessary if the record is silent concerning whether the trial court misunderstood its sentencing discretion”].) This presumption is particularly apt here because, although the trial court did not specifically mention the recent amendments to section 654, it demonstrated its familiarity with many recent changes in sentencing laws.

2020(People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1228 .) Effective January 1, 2019, sections 667 and 1385 were amended by Sen.

1999(See In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 82 [recognizing that an adult offender has the right to refuse probation when its terms appear more onerous than the sentence which might be imposed]; Bravo, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 608 [same].) A criminal defendant need not reject probation and accept incarceration in order to seek review of an allegedly unreasonable or invalid search condition, but a proper objection must be raised at the time of the sentencing hearing.

1999(See In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 82 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 33 , 876 P.2d 519 [recognizing that an adult offender has the right to refuse probation when its terms appear more onerous than the sentence which might be imposed]; Bravo, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 608 , 238 Cal.Rptr. 282 , 738 P.2d 336 [same].) A criminal defendant need not reject probation and accept incarceration in order to seek review of an allegedly unreasonable or invalid search condition, but a proper objection must be raised at the time of the sentencing hearing.

1999(See People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 236-237 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520 , 851 P.2d 802 ].) To clarify, we emphasize “at the very least” because our cases effectively recognize that a search pursuant to a probation search condition may be reasonable and lawful without facts indicating a probation violation ( Bravo, supra, 43 Cal.3d 600 ), and that an officer’s knowledge of the search condition is not a prerequisite to a valid search (In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal.4th 68 [decided in the context of a juvenile probationer]).

1999(See People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 236-237 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520 , 851 P.2d 802 ].) To clarify, we emphasize “at the very least” because our cases effectively recognize that a search pursuant to a probation search condition may be reasonable and lawful without facts indicating a probation violation ( Bravo, supra, 43 Cal.3d 600 ), and that an officer’s knowledge of the search condition is not a prerequisite to a valid search (In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal.4th 68 [decided in the context of a juvenile probationer]).

1999(See In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 82 [recognizing that an adult offender has the right to refuse probation when its terms appear more onerous than the sentence which might be imposed]; Bravo, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 608 [same].) A criminal defendant need not reject probation and accept incarceration in order to seek review of an allegedly unreasonable or invalid search condition, but a proper objection must be raised at the time of the sentencing hearing.

1999(See In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 82 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 33 , 876 P.2d 519 [recognizing that an adult offender has the right to refuse probation when its terms appear more onerous than the sentence which might be imposed]; Bravo, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 608 , 238 Cal.Rptr. 282 , 738 P.2d 336 [same].) A criminal defendant need not reject probation and accept incarceration in order to seek review of an allegedly unreasonable or invalid search condition, but a proper objection must be raised at the time of the sentencing hearing.

2026In view of the trial court’s familiarity with the facts of the case and the parties; the inexplicable nature of the crime; defendant’s conduct in jail, which included 14 fights by the time of the sentencing hearing; and the court’s express consideration of mitigating factors, which included defendant’s youth and his insignificant prior criminal record, aggravating factors, and public safety considerations, defense counsel may well have reasonably determined that either objecting to the exercise of the court’s sentencing discretion or requesting a more specific sentencing record as to the issue

2026In view of the trial court’s familiarity with the facts of the case and the parties; the inexplicable nature of the crime; defendant’s conduct in jail, which included 14 fights by the time of the sentencing hearing; and the court’s express consideration of mitigating factors, which included defendant’s youth and his insignificant prior criminal record, aggravating factors, and public safety considerations, defense counsel may well have reasonably determined that either objecting to the exercise of the court’s sentencing discretion or requesting a more specific sentencing record as to the issue

2026In view of the trial court’s familiarity with the facts of the case and the parties; the inexplicable nature of the crime; defendant’s conduct in jail, which included 14 fights by the time of the sentencing hearing; and the court’s express consideration of mitigating factors, which included defendant’s youth and his insignificant prior criminal record, aggravating factors, and public safety considerations, defense counsel may well have reasonably determined that either objecting to the exercise of the court’s sentencing discretion or requesting a more specific sentencing record as to the issue

2026In view of the trial court’s familiarity with the facts of the case and the parties; the inexplicable nature of the crime; defendant’s conduct in jail, which included 14 fights by the time of the sentencing hearing; and the court’s express consideration of mitigating factors, which included defendant’s youth and his insignificant prior criminal record, aggravating factors, and public safety considerations, defense counsel may well have reasonably determined that either objecting to the exercise of the court’s sentencing discretion or requesting a more specific sentencing record as to the issue

2025(People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 406 [“ ‘A party in a criminal case may not, on appeal, raise “claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices” if the party did not object to the sentence at trial.’ ”) Cervantes characterizes section 1385 as “newly amended” at the time of the sentencing hearing, but she was sentenced well over a year after the amendment’s effective date. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(7)).

2024(People v. Cowan, supra, at pp. 49–50; People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, 96 .) To meet that burden, Fish was required to “present evidence of his . . . inability to pay the amounts contemplated by the trial court.” (People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490 .) In determining his ability to pay, the court could consider all relevant circumstances and was not limited “to considering only whether [he] ha[d] the ability to pay at the time of the sentencing hearing.” (People v. Kopp, supra, at p. 96 [in determining a defendant’s ability to pay fines and assessments, it is appropria

2024(People v. Cowan, supra, at pp. 49–50; People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, 96 .) To meet that burden, Fish was required to “present evidence of his . . . inability to pay the amounts contemplated by the trial court.” (People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490 .) In determining his ability to pay, the court could consider all relevant circumstances and was not limited “to considering only whether [he] ha[d] the ability to pay at the time of the sentencing hearing.” (People v. Kopp, supra, at p. 96 [in determining a defendant’s ability to pay fines and assessments, it is appropria

2024(People v. Cowan, supra, at pp. 49–50; People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, 96 .) To meet that burden, Fish was required to “present evidence of his . . . inability to pay the amounts contemplated by the trial court.” (People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490 .) In determining his ability to pay, the court could consider all relevant circumstances and was not limited “to considering only whether [he] ha[d] the ability to pay at the time of the sentencing hearing.” (People v. Kopp, supra, at p. 96 [in determining a defendant’s ability to pay fines and assessments, it is appropria

2021He performed “side jobs” for income, demonstrating “some past income- earning capacity.” (People v. Johnson (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 134, 139 (Johnson).) Defendant previously received firefighter training and reported that he remained in good physical health and did not suffer from any mental health conditions.” (See People v. Frye, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1487 [“If defendant was ineligible for prison work assignment, it was incumbent upon him to alert the court to any such disability.”].) Even assuming defendant could only work for the minimum prison wage of $12 per month, given the length o