forfeited claim in California

2026(See People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148 , 161‒162, fn. 6 [an appellate court has authority to reach a forfeited claim].) C.

2026(See People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148 , 161‒162, fn. 6 [an appellate court has authority to reach a forfeited claim].) C.

2026(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [“An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party.”].) Such discretionary review is typical when “a forfeited claim involves an important issue of constitutional law or a substantial right.” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887, fn. 7 .) 8. sentencing court relied on factual recitations in the police reports, which counsel did not stipulate to admitting into evidence for the purpose of establishing aggravating factors, and which contained hearsay.

2026Such discretionary review is normally employed only when “a forfeited claim involves an important issue of constitutional law or a substantial right.” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887, fn. 7 .) Purely statutory limitations on the commencement of actions are not constitutional issues, and no party has a substantial right to engage in gamesmanship and sandbagging.

2026“We reiterate, however, that a defendant cannot automatically transform a forfeited claim into a cognizable one merely by asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.” (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 121, fn. 14 ; see People v. Brannon-Thompson (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 455 , 465.) 8 Respondent argues defendant forfeited this argument on appeal.

2025A defendant may not “automatically transform a forfeited claim into a cognizable one merely by asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.” (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 121, fn. 14 .) Rather, “[t]o establish constitutionally inadequate representation, a defendant must demonstrate that (1) counsel’s representation was deficient, i.e., it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms; and (2) counsel’s representation subjected the defendant to prejudice, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failings, the result wou

2026(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162, fn. 6 [an appellate court has authority to reach a forfeited claim]; People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146 [reviewing court may exercise discretion to consider forfeited claims to forestall ineffective assistance of counsel arguments]; see People v. Henry (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 786 , 791 & fn. 3 [reviewing Williamson argument (In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651 (Williamson)) on appeal despite the defendant’s failure to raise the issue before the trial court in order to forestall an ineffective assistance claim, among other 7. reasons];

2026(See People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 162, fn. 6 [an appellate court has authority to reach a forfeited claim]; People v. Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 146 [reviewing court may exercise discretion to consider forfeited claims to forestall ineffective assistance of counsel arguments].) Consequently, we reverse the victim restitution order and remand for reconsideration.

2025A defendant may not “automatically transform a forfeited claim into a cognizable one merely by asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.” (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 121, fn. 14 .) Rather, “[t]o establish constitutionally inadequate representation, a defendant must demonstrate that (1) counsel’s representation was deficient, i.e., it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms; and (2) counsel’s representation subjected the defendant to prejudice, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failings, the result wou

2025While we agree with the parties that the prosecutor committed misconduct by invoking the safety of her own children, suggesting the jurors should protect their own loved ones from Spann, and referring to conversations she had with the deputy and his family, a defendant may not “automatically transform a forfeited claim into a cognizable one merely by asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.” (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 121, fn. 14 ; see People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1202-1203 .) Rather, “[t]o establish constitutionally inadequate representation, a defendant must demo

2025A defendant may not “automatically transform a forfeited claim into a cognizable one merely by asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.” (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 121, fn. 14 ; see People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1202-1203 .) Rather, “[t]o establish constitutionally inadequate representation, a defendant must demonstrate that (1) counsel’s representation was deficient, i.e., it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms; and (2) counsel’s representation subjected the defendant to prejudice, i.e., there is a reasonable proba

2025While we agree with the parties that the prosecutor committed misconduct by invoking the safety of her own children, suggesting the jurors should protect their own loved ones from Spann, and referring to conversations she had with the deputy and his family, a defendant may not “automatically transform a forfeited claim into a cognizable one merely by asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.” (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 121, fn. 14 ; see People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1202-1203 .) Rather, “[t]o establish constitutionally inadequate representation, a defendant must demo

2022While we have discretion to reach the merits of a forfeited claim, the Supreme Court in In re S.B., supra, reminds us that “ . . . the appellate court’s discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal issue. [Citation.]” (In re S.B., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1293 .) We cannot excuse mother’s failure to preserve her visitation rights for review where she was aware of the recommendations prior to the hearing, as seen from her comments to the social worker in the additional information supplement to the 12-month review report about what sh

2022While we have discretion to reach the merits of a forfeited claim, the Supreme Court in In re S.B., supra, reminds us that “ . . . the appellate court’s discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal issue. [Citation.]” (In re S.B., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1293 .) We cannot excuse mother’s failure to preserve her visitation rights for review where she was aware of the recommendations prior to the hearing, as seen from her comments to the social worker in the additional information supplement to the 12-month review report about what sh

2025“If the record sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, ‘unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation,’ [citation], the contention must be rejected.” ’ ” (People v. Samayoa, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 845-846.) “ ‘Reviewing courts defer to counsel’s reasonable tactical decisions in examining a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [citation], and there is a “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” ’

2024“If the record sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, ‘unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation,’ [citation], the contention must be rejected.” ’ ” (People v. Samayoa, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 845-846.) “ ‘Reviewing courts defer to counsel’s reasonable tactical decisions in examining a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [citation], and there is a “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” ’

2024(E.g., People v. Rodriguez (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 890, 904 [appellate court may exercise its discretion to review a forfeited claim].) 12 “NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served: “1. □ as an individual defendant. “2. □ as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): “3. □ on behalf of (specify): “Under: □ CCP 416.10 (corporation) □ CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) □ CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) □ other (specify): □ CCP 416.60 (minor) □ CCP 416.70 (conservatee) □ CCP 416.90 (authorized person)” A summons may be served personally or by substituted service by delivering

2021(Rodriguez, supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 904 [appellate court may exercise its discretion to review a forfeited claim].) 33 was telling the truth, she did not rely on any outside evidence, her personal experience, or other improper matters in making the claim.

2022(See People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 237 [“Reviewing courts have traditionally excused parties for failing to raise an issue at trial where an objection would have been futile or wholly unsupported by substantive law then in existence.”].) Defendant argues we have the inherent authority to consider a forfeited claim.

2020(People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 230, 237 .) Because the minor forfeited his claim by failing to object to the electronic devices search condition below, we turn to whether the minor has established ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to object. b.

2021(People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1260 (Virgil); Lang, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 1024 .) We may nevertheless review a forfeited claim of error if it affected a defendant’s substantial rights. (§ 1259; People v. Delgado (2017) 2 Cal.5th 544, 572, fn. 15 .) A defendant’s substantial rights were affected if the error “resulted in a miscarriage of justice, making it reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of error.” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 (Andersen).) This analysis “necessarily requires an examination of the me

2015(People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 130 [ 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 419 , 277 P.3d 118 ]; People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1239 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 465 , 253 P.3d 553 ].) In an appropriate case, a forfeited claim of juror bias can be asserted on appeal under the rubric of ineffective assistance of counsel.

2026(See, e.g., People v. Young (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 451, 463 ; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [an appellate court has the authority to reach a forfeited claim].) To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Santiago must establish both deficient performance and prejudice, that is, “a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746 ; see id. at pp. 745–746.) Tactical errors are generally not deemed reversible, and counsel’s decisions ar

2026(See, e.g., People v. Young (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 451, 463 ; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [an appellate court has the authority to reach a forfeited claim].) To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Santiago must establish both deficient performance and prejudice, that is, “a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746 ; see id. at pp. 745–746.) Tactical errors are generally not deemed reversible, and counsel’s decisions ar

2026(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162, fn. 6 [an appellate court has authority to reach a forfeited claim]; People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146 [reviewing court may exercise discretion to consider forfeited claims to forestall ineffective assistance of counsel arguments]; see People v. Henry (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 786 , 791 & fn. 3 [reviewing Williamson argument (In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651 (Williamson)) on appeal despite the defendant’s failure to raise the issue before the trial court in order to forestall an ineffective assistance claim, among other 7. reasons];

2025(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162, fn. 6 [an appellate court has authority to reach a forfeited claim]; People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146 [reviewing court may exercise discretion to consider forfeited claims to forestall ineffective assistance of counsel arguments]; see People v. Henry (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 786 , 791 & fn. 3 [reviewing Williamson argument (In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651 (Williamson)) on appeal despite the defendant’s failure to raise the issue before the trial court in order to forestall an ineffective assistance claim, among other 7. reasons];

2026(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162, fn. 6 [an appellate court has authority to reach a forfeited claim]; People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146 [reviewing court may exercise discretion to consider forfeited claims to forestall ineffective assistance of counsel arguments]; see People v. Henry (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 786 , 791 & fn. 3 [reviewing Williamson argument (In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651 (Williamson)) on appeal despite the defendant’s failure to raise the issue before the trial court in order to forestall an ineffective assistance claim, among other 7. reasons];

2026(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162, fn. 6 [an appellate court has authority to reach a forfeited claim]; People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146 [reviewing court may exercise discretion to consider forfeited claims to forestall ineffective assistance of counsel arguments]; see People v. Henry (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 786 , 791 & fn. 3 [reviewing Williamson argument (In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651 (Williamson)) on appeal despite the defendant’s failure to raise the issue before the trial court in order to forestall an ineffective assistance claim, among other 7. reasons];

2025(See Magana v. Superior Court (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 840, 854, fn. 2 ; County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 434, 452, fn. 14 .) However, “the forfeiture doctrine is not absolute.” (K.R. v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 133 , 142.) “[A]n appellate court may review a forfeited claim—and ‘[w]hether or not it should do so is entrusted to its discretion.’ ” (In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 887, fn. 7 ; see County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 621 , 636.) In this case, CVT asks us to decide that the apportionment of attorney fees and

2023(See Magana v. Superior Court (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 840, 854, fn. 2 [finding argument petitioner had made in the trial court but did repeat in his petition was forfeited “despite his belated attempt to resurrect it in his reply brief.”]; County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 434, 452, fn. 14 [disregarding petitioner’s argument “made for the first time in its reply to opposition to petition for writ of mandate”].) However, “the forfeiture doctrine is not absolute.” (K.R. v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 133 , 142.) “[A]n appellate court may review a forfeited cla

2025(See Magana v. Superior Court (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 840, 854, fn. 2 ; County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 434, 452, fn. 14 .) However, “the forfeiture doctrine is not absolute.” (K.R. v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 133 , 142.) “[A]n appellate court may review a forfeited claim—and ‘[w]hether or not it should do so is entrusted to its discretion.’ ” (In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 887, fn. 7 ; see County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 621 , 636.) In this case, CVT asks us to decide that the apportionment of attorney fees and

2023(See Magana v. Superior Court (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 840, 854, fn. 2 [finding argument petitioner had made in the trial court but did repeat in his petition was forfeited “despite his belated attempt to resurrect it in his reply brief.”]; County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 434, 452, fn. 14 [disregarding petitioner’s argument “made for the first time in its reply to opposition to petition for writ of mandate”].) However, “the forfeiture doctrine is not absolute.” (K.R. v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 133 , 142.) “[A]n appellate court may review a forfeited cla

2022(See, e.g., In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 928 [addressing the merits of a forfeited challenge to a probation condition to avoid the need to analyze the defendant’s alternative ineffective assistance of counsel claim].) 8 sexually oriented materials by persons [convicted of sexual offenses] promotes public safety and his rehabilitation . . . .” Here, defendant committed sexually violent crimes.

2021(See, e.g., In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 928 [addressing the merits of a forfeited challenge to probation condition where ineffective assistance of counsel claimed].) All defendants are eligible for probation, in the discretion of the sentencing court, unless a statute provides otherwise.

2020Given Frederickson’s diligent efforts to plead guilty until the municipal court endorsed the prosecutor’s statement that “by law he cannot plead guilty to a special circumstances allegation case,” I would not reject Frederickson’s section 1018 challenge on forfeiture grounds. 5 PEOPLE v. FREDERICKSON, Liu, J., concurring In any event, we regularly excuse forfeiture where the defendant has asserted the deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right (People v. Vera (1997) 15 Cal.4th 269, 276 [“A defendant is not precluded from raising for the first time on appeal a claim asserting the depriva

2020Given Frederickson’s diligent efforts to plead guilty until the municipal court endorsed the prosecutor’s statement that “by law he cannot plead guilty to a special circumstances allegation case,” I would not reject Frederickson’s section 1018 challenge on forfeiture grounds. 5 PEOPLE v. FREDERICKSON, Liu, J., concurring In any event, we regularly excuse forfeiture where the defendant has asserted the deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right (People v. Vera (1997) 15 Cal.4th 269, 276 [“A defendant is not precluded from raising for the first time on appeal a claim asserting the depriva

2024(People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 .) Nonetheless, “[t]he Courts of Appeal have excused forfeiture ‘when a forfeited claim involves an important issue of constitutional law or a substantial right.’ ” (People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963 ,1031.) Here, Smith has raised both a constitutional challenge and a challenge involving a substantial right.

2024(McCullough, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 593 .) “Thus, an appellate court may review a forfeited claim—and ‘[w]hether or not it should do so is entrusted to its discretion.’ ” (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 887, fn. 7 .) Hale, cited by Mitchell, is consistent with the conclusion we have discretion in deciding whether to entertain his equal protection challenge.

2024Involuntary Confession The due process clauses of “[b]oth the state and federal Constitutions bar the prosecution from introducing a defendant’s involuntary confession into evidence at trial.” (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1176 ; accord, People v. Orozco (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 819 .) A coerced or involuntary confession is inadmissible for any purpose.

2015Appellant’s Claim of Prosecutorial Misconduct Has Been Forfeited In order to preserve a misconduct claim for review on appeal, “‘a defendant must make a timely and specific objection and ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the improper arguments.’” (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1205 ; People v. Thomas (2012) 54 Cal.4th 908, 937 .) Unless a defendant can demonstrate that an objection would have been futile or an admonition would not have cured the error, even the assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel will not automatically transform a forfeited claim into

2014(People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 590 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 853 P.2d 1093 ].) The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, to “noncurable defects of substance where the question is one of law,” or to “matters involving the public interest or the due administration of justice . . . .” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 406, pp. 464, 465.) Further, we have discretion to consider a forfeited claim.

2014(People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 590 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 853 P.2d 1093 ].) The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, to “noncurable defects of substance where the question is one of law,” or to “matters involving the public interest or the due administration of justice . . . .” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 406, pp. 464, 465.) Further, we have discretion to consider a forfeited claim.

2022There is an exception to the forfeiture rule, however, where the claimed instructional error “affected the substantial rights of the defendant, i.e., resulted in a miscarriage of justice, making it reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of the error.” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 .) Determining whether this exception applies “necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim—at least to the extent of ascertaining whether the asserted error would result in prejudice if error it was.” (Ibid.) Moreover, we

2021(People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1260 (Virgil); Lang, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 1024 .) We may nevertheless review a forfeited claim of error if it affected a defendant’s substantial rights. (§ 1259; People v. Delgado (2017) 2 Cal.5th 544, 572, fn. 15 .) A defendant’s substantial rights were affected if the error “resulted in a miscarriage of justice, making it reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of error.” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 (Andersen).) This analysis “necessarily requires an examination of the me

2022There is an exception to the forfeiture rule, however, where the claimed instructional error “affected the substantial rights of the defendant, i.e., resulted in a miscarriage of justice, making it reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of the error.” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 .) Determining whether this exception applies “necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim—at least to the extent of ascertaining whether the asserted error would result in prejudice if error it was.” (Ibid.) Moreover, we

2021(In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887 [an appellate court may review a forfeited claim]; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [“[a]n appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party”]; People v. Williams (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1126 [a reviewing court may elect to reach the merits of a claim that has been waived “to forestall a petition for writ of habeas corpus based on a claim of ineffect[ive] counsel”].) The People assert we should decline to consider Riley’s request for pretrial diversion becaus

2022(See People v. Romero and Self (2015) 62 Cal.4th 1, 44 [“In an appropriate case, a forfeited claim of juror bias can be asserted on appeal under the rubric of ineffective 12 assistance of counsel”].) In addressing the merits, we reject defendant’s argument that his trial was structurally flawed.

2016(People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 121, fn. 14 .) And of course, to show ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must make the familiar two-prong showing of both deficient performance and prejudice. ( Strickland, supra, at p. 687 .) To establish deficient performance under Strickland, a defendant must show “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” (Ibid.) On the performance prong, “ ‘deciding whether to object is inherently tactical, and the failure to object will rarely establish ineffectiv

2015(People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 121, fn. 14 .) The underlying purpose of this requirement is to “‘“encourage a defendant to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected or avoided and a fair trial had . . . .”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 590 .) “The objection requirement is necessary in criminal cases because a ‘contrary rule would deprive the People of the opportunity to cure the defect at trial and would “permit the defendant to gamble on an acquittal at his trial secure in the knowledge that a conviction would be rever

2007(See, e.g., People v. Peck (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 351, 361-362, fn. 5 , 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 [the applicability of the forfeiture rule to constitutional challenges not having been decided, the appellate court in its discretion considered the merits of the claim that probation conditions impermissibly burdened the defendant's constitutional rights to freedom of association and religion]; People v. Hackler (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1052, 1054-1057 , 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 681 [the trial court having failed to provide advance notice or to grant a continuance and having itself solicited appellate review of t