course of the sentencing hearing in California

2025A party may not raise on appeal “ ‘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. [Citation.] The rule applies to ‘cases in which the court purportedly erred because it double-counted a particular sentencing factor, misweighed the various factors, or failed to state any reasons or give a sufficient number of valid reasons’ [citation], but the rule does not apply when the sentence is legally unauthorized [citation].” (People v. Gonzalez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 745, 751 , quoting Peop

2022This opportunity can occur only if, during the course of the sentencing hearing itself and before objections are made, the parties are clearly apprised of the sentence the court intends to impose and the reasons that support any discretionary choices.” (Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 356 .) Appellant contends, “There was no meaningful opportunity . . . to object . . . because the trial court did not state the circumstances in aggravation until after the [upper] term was imposed.” But 17 the court gave no indication that its imposition of the upper term was final and unmodifiable.

2025A party may not raise on appeal “ ‘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. [Citation.] The rule applies to ‘cases in which the court purportedly erred because it double-counted a particular sentencing factor, misweighed the various factors, or failed to state any reasons or give a sufficient number of valid reasons’ [citation], but the rule does not apply when the sentence is legally unauthorized [citation].” (People v. Gonzalez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 745, 751 , quoting Peop

2023This opportunity can occur only if, during the course of the sentencing hearing itself and before objections are made, the parties are clearly apprised of the sentence the court intends to impose and the reasons that support any discretionary choices.” In People v. Gonzalez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 745 (Gonzalez), the court clarified that the Scott rule does not require that the trial court issue a tentative ruling on the sentence it intends to impose, “if, at any time during the sentencing hearing, the trial court describes the sentence it intends to impose and the reasons for the sentence, and the

2015(Gonzalez, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 752 ["The parties are given an adequate opportunity to seek such clarifications or changes if, at any time during the sentencing hearing, the trial court describes the sentence it intends to impose and the reasons for the sentence, and the court thereafter considers the objections of the parties before the actual sentencing" (second italics added)]; Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 356 [A meaningful opportunity to object to sentencing can occur "only if, during the course of the sentencing hearing itself and before objections are made, the parties are clearly ap

2015(Gonzalez, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 752 ["The parties are given an adequate opportunity to seek such clarifications or changes if, at any time during the sentencing hearing, the trial court describes the sentence it intends to impose and the reasons for the sentence, and the court thereafter considers the objections of the parties before the actual sentencing" (second italics added)]; Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 356 [A meaningful opportunity to object to sentencing can occur "only if, during the course of the sentencing hearing itself and before objections are made, the parties are clearly ap

2015This opportunity can occur only if, during the course of the sentencing hearing itself and before objections are made, the parties are clearly apprised of the sentence the court intends to impose and the reasons that support any discretionary choices.” (Id. at p. 356.) “[A] meaningful opportunity to object means that the defendant be given the opportunity to address the court on the matter of sentence 9 and to object to any sentence or condition thereof imposed by the court.” (People v. Zuniga (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 81, 84 [court not required to issue tentative ruling to foreclose application o

2015(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 355-356 (Scott); see People v. de Soto (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1, 7-8 [failure to impose a specific objection at sentencing forfeits claim on appeal].) A “meaningful opportunity” to object to the court’s sentencing determinations occurs when, “during the course of the sentencing hearing itself and before objections are made, the parties are clearly apprised of the sentence the court intends to impose and the reasons that support any discretionary choices.” (Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 356 .) “The parties are given an adequate opportunity to seek such clar

1984(See People v. Lock (1981) 30 Cal.3d 454, 459 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 56 , 637 P.2d 292 ]; People v. Powell (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 513, 519 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 803 ].) In denying probation and indicating this was a “state prison case” the court, as the previously recited facts show, pointed to defendant’s apparent lack of remorse and unwillingness to face the seriousness of his conduct.

1984(See People v. Lock (1981) 30 Cal.3d 454, 459 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 56 , 637 P.2d 292 ]; People v. Powell (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 513, 519 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 803 ].) In denying probation and indicating this was a “state prison case” the court, as the previously recited facts show, pointed to defendant’s apparent lack of remorse and unwillingness to face the seriousness of his conduct.

1984(See People v. Lock (1981) 30 Cal.3d 454, 459 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 56 , 637 P.2d 292 ]; People v. Powell (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 513, 519 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 803 ].) In denying probation and indicating this was a “state prison case” the court, as the previously recited facts show, pointed to defendant’s apparent lack of remorse and unwillingness to face the seriousness of his conduct.

1984(See People v. Lock (1981) 30 Cal.3d 454, 459 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 56 , 637 P.2d 292 ]; People v. Powell (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 513, 519 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 803 ].) In denying probation and indicating this was a “state prison case” the court, as the previously recited facts show, pointed to defendant’s apparent lack of remorse and unwillingness to face the seriousness of his conduct.