otherwise forfeited claim in California

2024“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 .) But courts may exercise discretion to consider the merits of an otherwise forfeited challenge that “present[s] a pure question of law” or where “defendant did not have a meaningful opportunity to object at trial.” (Id. at p. 887 & fn. 7.) This court has done so in the context of SVP commitments.

2020It is well settled that an appellate court may decide an otherwise forfeited claim where the trial court has made an error affecting “an important issue of constitutional law or a substantial right.” (Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 887, fn. 7 .) In Mancebo, the trial court made such an error, and it was therefore within our discretion to correct it notwithstanding the absence of a timely objection.

2024(See 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.”]; People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146 [court considered an otherwise forfeited claim to forestall an ineffective assistant of counsel claim].) 19 jurors shared the protesting juror’s concerns about the release of their information.

2022(See, e.g., People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161162, fn. 6 .) Alternately, he argues defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object the prosecutor’s representation of the law. 26 Because we conclude any misstatement of the law of sexual penetration was harmless we dispense with the forfeiture and ineffective of assistance claims and proceed to the merits.

2021(In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293–1294.) Thus, we will consider his claim on the merits.

2015(In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 887, fn. 7; In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 786 , 90 P.3d 746 ]; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161-162, fn. 6 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 917 , 948 P.2d 429 ].) Our Supreme Court has held that “neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic. [Citation.]” (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 365 , 298 P.3d 860 ].) As Williams observed, “An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party. [Citations.] Inde

2025(People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562 , 568.) “[W]here an otherwise forfeited claim presents an important question of constitutional law or a substantial right, the appellate court may exercise discretion to review the claim.” (People v. Denard (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1030, fn. 10 .) Thus, in Gonzalez, this court declined to apply forfeiture to the defendant’s section 1170(b) claim where the defendant did not refer to the statute at sentencing, citing the defendant’s alternative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and stating that “the application of amended section 1170,

2021(See People v. Denard (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1030, fn. 10 [“where an otherwise forfeited claim presents an important question of constitutional law or a substantial right, the appellate court may exercise discretion to review the claim”].) 27 certainly employ common sense and experience to determine whether or not” a knife is a deadly instrument].) Moreover, neither the People nor defense counsel suggested that the screwdriver wielded by McKenzie was inherently deadly or dangerous.

2024(See, e.g., People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 962 [reviewing court may reach the merits of an otherwise forfeited claim when the alleged error affects the defendant’s substantial right].)4 As noted above, Martinez raises three arguments why SB 81 should apply to his case.

2024Both parties agree defense counsel did not object to or request to modify CALCRIM Nos. 521 or 522. “‘A party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.’” (People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 724 .) But “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court may decide an otherwise forfeited claim where the trial court has made an error affecting ‘an important issue of constitutional law or a substantial right.’” (People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.

2024(See 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.”]; People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146 [court considered an otherwise forfeited claim to forestall an ineffective assistant of counsel claim].) 19 jurors shared the protesting juror’s concerns about the release of their information.

2024(See, e.g., People v. Curlee (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 709 , 713–716 [rejecting a claim of forfeiture in determining an SVP defendant had been deprived of his constitutional right to equal protection when the district attorney called him as a witness at his own commitment trial]; People v. Cannon (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 786 , 794–795 [declining to apply forfeiture doctrine to equal protection challenge to SVPA], review granted on standard of review issue Feb. 15, 2023, S277995].) Because an SVP commitment “affects the committee’s liberty interests [citation], . . . we deem it an appropriate exercis

2024(See, e.g., People v. Curlee (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 709 , 713–716 [rejecting a claim of forfeiture in determining an SVP defendant had been deprived of his constitutional right to equal protection when the district attorney called him as a witness at his own commitment trial]; People v. Cannon (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 786 , 794–795 [declining to apply forfeiture doctrine to equal protection challenge to SVPA], review granted on standard of review issue Feb. 15, 2023, S277995].) Because an SVP commitment “affects the committee’s liberty interests [citation], . . . we deem it an appropriate exercis

2024(See, e.g., People v. Curlee (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 709 , 713–716 [rejecting a claim of forfeiture in determining an SVP defendant had been deprived of his constitutional right to equal protection when the district attorney called him as a witness at his own commitment trial]; People v. Cannon (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 786 , 794–795 [declining to apply forfeiture doctrine to equal protection challenge to SVPA], review granted on standard of review issue Feb. 15, 2023, S277995].) Because an SVP commitment “affects the committee’s liberty interests [citation], . . . we deem it an appropriate exercis

2024(See, e.g., People v. Curlee (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 709 , 713–716 [rejecting a claim of forfeiture in determining an SVP defendant had been deprived of his constitutional right to equal protection when the district attorney called him as a witness at his own commitment trial]; People v. Cannon (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 786 , 794–795 [declining to apply forfeiture doctrine to equal protection challenge to SVPA], review granted on standard of review issue Feb. 15, 2023, S277995].) Because an SVP commitment “affects the committee’s liberty interests [citation], . . . we deem it an appropriate exercis

2022(People v. Braxton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 798, 813 [“[A] party may not challenge on appeal a procedural error or omission if the party acquiesced by failing to object or protest under circumstances indicating that the error or omission probably was inadvertent”].) In any event, this otherwise forfeited claim fails on the merits.

2015(People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257,289-290 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459 , 226 P.3d 949 ] [failure to object on constitutional grounds forfeited claim that hearsay statements admissible under exception to the hearsay rule violated 6th Amend, right to confrontation]; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 250 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123 , 940 P.2d 710 ] [same]; People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 922 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 ] [arguments first made in reply brief would be disregarded on appeal]; People v. Newton (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ] [same].) Howev

2015(People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257,289-290 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459 , 226 P.3d 949 ] [failure to object on constitutional grounds forfeited claim that hearsay statements admissible under exception to the hearsay rule violated 6th Amend, right to confrontation]; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 250 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123 , 940 P.2d 710 ] [same]; People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 922 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 ] [arguments first made in reply brief would be disregarded on appeal]; People v. Newton (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ] [same].) Howev

2015(People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257,289-290 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459 , 226 P.3d 949 ] [failure to object on constitutional grounds forfeited claim that hearsay statements admissible under exception to the hearsay rule violated 6th Amend, right to confrontation]; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 250 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123 , 940 P.2d 710 ] [same]; People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 922 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 ] [arguments first made in reply brief would be disregarded on appeal]; People v. Newton (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ] [same].) Howev

2015(People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257,289-290 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459 , 226 P.3d 949 ] [failure to object on constitutional grounds forfeited claim that hearsay statements admissible under exception to the hearsay rule violated 6th Amend, right to confrontation]; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 250 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123 , 940 P.2d 710 ] [same]; People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 922 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 ] [arguments first made in reply brief would be disregarded on appeal]; People v. Newton (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ] [same].) Howev

2015(People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257,289-290 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459 , 226 P.3d 949 ] [failure to object on constitutional grounds forfeited claim that hearsay statements admissible under exception to the hearsay rule violated 6th Amend, right to confrontation]; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 250 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123 , 940 P.2d 710 ] [same]; People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 922 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 ] [arguments first made in reply brief would be disregarded on appeal]; People v. Newton (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ] [same].) Howev

2015(People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257,289-290 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459 , 226 P.3d 949 ] [failure to object on constitutional grounds forfeited claim that hearsay statements admissible under exception to the hearsay rule violated 6th Amend, right to confrontation]; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 250 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123 , 940 P.2d 710 ] [same]; People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 922 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 ] [arguments first made in reply brief would be disregarded on appeal]; People v. Newton (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ] [same].) Howev

2015(People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257,289-290 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459 , 226 P.3d 949 ] [failure to object on constitutional grounds forfeited claim that hearsay statements admissible under exception to the hearsay rule violated 6th Amend, right to confrontation]; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 250 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123 , 940 P.2d 710 ] [same]; People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 922 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 ] [arguments first made in reply brief would be disregarded on appeal]; People v. Newton (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ] [same].) Howev

2015(People v. D’Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257,289-290 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 459 , 226 P.3d 949 ] [failure to object on constitutional grounds forfeited claim that hearsay statements admissible under exception to the hearsay rule violated 6th Amend, right to confrontation]; People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 250 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123 , 940 P.2d 710 ] [same]; People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 922 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 , 235 P.3d 873 ] [arguments first made in reply brief would be disregarded on appeal]; People v. Newton (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ] [same].) Howev

2015(In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 887, fn. 7; In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 786 , 90 P.3d 746 ]; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161-162, fn. 6 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 917 , 948 P.2d 429 ].) Our Supreme Court has held that “neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic. [Citation.]” (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 365 , 298 P.3d 860 ].) As Williams observed, “An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party. [Citations.] Inde

2015(In re Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 887, fn. 7; In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 786 , 90 P.3d 746 ]; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161-162, fn. 6 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 917 , 948 P.2d 429 ].) Our Supreme Court has held that “neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic. [Citation.]” (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 365 , 298 P.3d 860 ].) As Williams observed, “An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party. [Citations.] Inde