forfeiture rule in California

2026(See In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875 , 886–887 [constitutional challenges to a probation condition presenting a pure question of law come within the exception to the forfeiture rule].) Defendant’s challenge to his probation condition as unconstitutionally delegating the trial court’s authority to probation in violation of the separation of powers clause presents a pure question of law, easily remediable on appeal.

2026(In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880 (Sheena K.).) An exception to this forfeiture rule applies when the claim involves a facial constitutional challenge, which presents “a pure question of law” that does not require an examination of the trial court’s record.

2026(See People v. Gerold (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 781, 787 [distinguishing “ ‘a lack of fundamental jurisdiction,’ ” which “ ‘may be raised at any time,’ ” from “ ‘a challenge to a ruling in excess of jurisdiction,’ ” which “ ‘is subject to forfeiture if not timely asserted’ ”]; see also In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 (S.B.) [“Dependency matters are not exempt from [the forfeiture] rule”], superseded by statute on other grounds.) We recognize, however, that the “application of the forfeiture rule is not automatic,” even if “the . . . discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rare

2026(See People v. Gerold (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 781, 787 [distinguishing “ ‘a lack of fundamental jurisdiction,’ ” which “ ‘may be raised at any time,’ ” from “ ‘a challenge to a ruling in excess of jurisdiction,’ ” which “ ‘is subject to forfeiture if not timely asserted’ ”]; see also In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 (S.B.) [“Dependency matters are not exempt from [the forfeiture] rule”], superseded by statute on other grounds.) We recognize, however, that the “application of the forfeiture rule is not automatic,” even if “the . . . discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rare

2026Huerta disputes forfeiture applies because he claims defense counsel “was not provided with a meaningful opportunity to address the court’s reasons for declining to strike the enhancement.” We conclude defense counsel had a meaningful opportunity to object, and thus the claim is forfeited. “[C]omplaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356 .) This forfeiture rule encourages the prompt detection and correction of error, reduce

2026Without discussion, the Attorney General also cites People v. Anderson (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 233 and People v. Tilley (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 772 , both of which relied on the rule in People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 356 that “complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Anderson did not involve section 1170(b)(6); it applied the forfeiture doctrine to a claim that the trial court erred by 9 imposing the upper term without citing any factors in aggravation.

2026(People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 [“neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic”].) 16 We ordered mother to file any writ petition by November 25.

2026(People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 [“neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic,” and appellate courts have discretion to review otherwise forfeited challenges].) II.

2026Forfeiture “As a general rule, ‘a party may forfeit [the] right to present a claim of error to the appellate court if he did not do enough to “prevent[]” or “correct[]” the claimed error in the trial court.’ [Citation.]” (Conservatorship of C.O. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 894 , 903 9 Both because the court was not required to dismiss any enhancement because it rendered a danger to society finding, and because a prior strike conviction is not an enhancement, defendant’s due process argument fails. 9 quoting People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 .) “The forfeiture doctrine is not absol

2025As a general rule, “a party may forfeit [the] right to present a claim of error to the appellate court if he did not do enough to ‘prevent[]’ or ‘correct[]’ the claimed error in the trial court.” (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 .) But “because the forfeiture doctrine is not absolute [citation], and there appear to be no disputed facts at issue, we choose to exercise our discretion to address the merits of [J.A.’s] claim[.]” (K.R. v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 133 , 142 (K.R.).) 2 The appellant’s opening brief was filed in August 2024, the respondent’s brief was

2025(Patton, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 946; Sheena K., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 889 [“given a meaningful opportunity, the probationer should object to a perceived facial constitutional flaw at the time a probation condition initially is imposed in order to permit the trial court to consider, and if appropriate in the exercise of its informed judgment, to effect a correction”]; People v. Welch, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 234-235, 237 [failure to object to a 9 probation condition on a ground at the sentencing hearing forfeits that specific claim on appeal]; In re Josue S. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 168, 17

2025“As a general rule, only ‘claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal.’ ” (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852 ; accord People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353-354 .) Our Supreme Court adopted this forfeiture rule “ ‘to reduce the number of errors committed in the first instance’ [citation], and ‘the number of costly appeals brought on that basis.’ ” (Smith, at p. 852; accord People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 235 .) In the context of criminal sentencing, this forfeiture rule applies “to claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or

2026(People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 856 [“‘the forfeiture rule applies in the context of sentencing as in other areas of criminal law’”].) Even if preserved, we still would see no abuse of discretion in declining to obtain supplemental materials beyond what the parties provided in their written submissions in advance of the hearing (which the 8 In a three-paragraph subsection under the heading proclaiming the trial court erred by concluding defendant was not entitled to a full resentencing, defendant faults the trial court for “not mak[ing] any finding that dismissing the enhancements ‘

2025DISCUSSION Defendant contends reversal is required because the trial court did not say it considered whether striking the serious prior felony conviction enhancements would endanger public safety under section 1385, subdivision (c)(2) at the time of defendant’s possible future release from custody (remarking more generally instead that there was “no justification to warrant striking the enhancement[s]”).3 We hold this argument is forfeited because it was not raised below, either before or after the trial court announced the sentence that would be imposed. “‘In general, the forfeiture rule appl

2025(People v. Carreon (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 559 , 580–581 [failure to object to unsworn interpreter waives issue on appeal].) In Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428 , the California Supreme Court recognized a narrow exception to the forfeiture rule where a defendant who objected solely on section 352 grounds could nonetheless argue on appeal that overruling his objection had the “additional legal consequence” of violating due process.

2025(People v. Carreon (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 559 , 580–581 [failure to object to unsworn interpreter waives issue on appeal].) In Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428 , the California Supreme Court recognized a narrow exception to the forfeiture rule where a defendant who objected solely on section 352 grounds could nonetheless argue on appeal that overruling his objection had the “additional legal consequence” of violating due process.

2026We acknowledge the forfeiture rule “counsels an appellate court not to reach a nonpreserved claim when it has resulted in a void in the record that the court itself cannot or should not fill.” (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 855 .) But here, the voir dire of R.M. had already been completed, and the prosecutor indicated no need to further develop the record in order to rebut section 231.7(e)(1)’s presumption of invalidity; she simply neglected to explain why the record was sufficient to rebut that presumption.

2025Thus, all ‘claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices’ raised for the first time on appeal are not subject to review.” (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852 ; see People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 856 [the forfeiture rule generally “ ‘applies in the context of sentencing as in other areas of criminal law’ ”].) Here, Carter has forfeited the argument he asserts on appeal because he failed to raise it below.

2026“A party who fails to object to a special verdict form ordinarily waives any objection to the form.” (Behr, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at p. 530 .) “Failure to object to a verdict before the discharge of a jury and to request clarification or further deliberation precludes a party from later questioning the validity of that verdict if the alleged defect was apparent at the time the verdict was rendered and could have been corrected.” (Henrioulle v. Marin Ventures, Inc. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 512, 521 .) “The forfeiture rule generally applies in all civil and criminal proceedings. [Citations.] The rule i

2026In the highly unusual circumstances of this case, however, we conclude that Torres forfeited this claim of error. 2 Under the doctrine of forfeiture, “a 2 “Although ‘waiver’ and ‘forfeiture’ are often used interchangeably to describe a party’s failure to raise an issue in the trial court, the two terms should be differentiated.” (Vascos Excavation Group LLC v. Gold (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 842 , 856.) Forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion 11 reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been made but was not made in the trial cour

2025(Cf. People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1104 [explaining that without a forfeiture rule, a defendant might purposefully “ ‘delay[] the raising of the claim in the hopes of an acquittal, with the thought that if those hopes did not materialize, the claim could be used to upset an otherwise valid conviction’ ”], quoting Davis v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 233, 241 .) Nor did Sullivan raise his discrimination concerns in the trial court once the RJA was enacted.

2025(Cf. People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1104 [explaining that without a forfeiture rule, a defendant might purposefully “ ‘delay[] the raising of the claim in the hopes of an acquittal, with the thought that if those hopes did not materialize, the claim could be used to upset an otherwise valid conviction’ ”], quoting Davis v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 233, 241 .) Nor did Sullivan raise his discrimination concerns in the trial court once the RJA was enacted.

2022(Cf. In re Dakota S., supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 501 [“it would be inappropriate to allow a party not to object to an error of which the party is or should be aware”].) 23 Additionally, “application of the forfeiture rule is not automatic.” (In re S.B., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1293 .) Although the Supreme Court has cautioned that an appellate court’s discretion to consider forfeited claims in dependency cases should be used rarely and with special care, it has approved the exercise of that discretion in cases presenting an important question of law.

2022The forfeiture doctrine has been applied in dependency proceedings in a wide variety of contexts, including cases involving failures to obtain various statutorily required reports.” (In re G.C. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1398-1399 [cleaned up]; accord, In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502 [failure to prepare section 366.22 assessment forfeited by failure to object despite that provision’s mandatory language].) Moreover, any error in proceeding with the jurisdiction and disposition hearings in the dependency proceedings on July 14, 2021 appears to be harmless.

2003Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1146 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ].) At the forfeiture hearing King was entitled to an attorney with “the overarching duty to advocate the defendant’s cause.” (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 688 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 2065 ].) Dorfman offered no argument in favor of King retaining his right to counsel, not even an argument that the forfeiture proceeding violated King’s due process rights.

2003Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1146 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ].) At the forfeiture hearing King was entitled to an attorney with “the overarching duty to advocate the defendant’s cause.” (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 688 [ 104 S.Ct. at p. 2065 ].) Dorfman offered no argument in favor of King retaining his right to counsel, not even an argument that the forfeiture proceeding violated King’s due process rights.

2023Such an objection would not have been futile under governing law at the time of his sentencing hearing. [Citations.]” (Frandsen, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 1154 .) In other words, “even before Dueñas a defendant had every incentive to object to imposition of a maximum restitution fine based on inability to pay because governing law as reflected in the statute [citation] expressly permitted such a challenge. [Citation.]” (People v. Gutierrez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1033 .) Because defendant forfeited his objection to the $10,000 restitution fine and suspended parole revocation fine in equa

2022(See People v. Frandsen (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1126, 1153 ; People v. Speight (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247 ; People v. Johnson (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 623, 636 .) Second, Czirban’s argument that the trial court violated section 1202.4 and, in turn, violated his due process rights does not render the forfeiture doctrine inapplicable to his separate Lent-based challenge to the attorney fees.

2024The purpose of the forfeiture rule is “to balance the parents’ interest in the care and custody of their children with the children’s interest in the expeditious resolution of their custody status.” (In re T.G. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 976, 984 .) But the rule “must not be applied if ‘due process forbids it.’ ” (Id. at p. 985; see In re Janee J. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 198, 208 .) For the due process exception to the forfeiture rule to apply, the parent must show there was a defect in the proceedings that “fundamentally undermined the statutory scheme” so as to prevent the parent “from availing hi

2024The purpose of the forfeiture rule is “to balance the parents’ interest in the care and custody of their children with the children’s interest in the expeditious resolution of their custody status.” (In re T.G. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 976, 984 .) But the rule “must not be applied if ‘due process forbids it.’ ” (Id. at p. 985; see In re Janee J. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 198, 208 .) For the due process exception to the forfeiture rule to apply, the parent must show there was a defect in the proceedings that “fundamentally undermined the statutory scheme” so as to prevent the parent “from availing hi

2025Code, § 353; People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 756 .) As to challenges based on the federal right of confrontation, the California Supreme Court has repeatedly applied the forfeiture rule.

2020(People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 757 [“failure to object in a timely manner to 22 asserted prosecutorial misconduct . . . results in the forfeiture of the claim on appeal”].) Anticipating this conclusion, defendant argues his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to so object.

2025Under the forfeiture doctrine, with few exceptions, “‘an appellate court will not consider claims of error that could have been—but were not— raised in the trial court.’” (People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114 .) Sattley’s argument fails for this reason. 34 Further, Sattley has failed to show prejudice from the exclusion of evidence.

2025(People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 ; People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114 .) However, there are exceptions to the forfeiture doctrine that apply in this case.

2024(See In re Wilford J. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 742 , 754 “[An appellate court ordinarily will not consider challenges based on procedural defects or erroneous rulings where an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court. [Citation.] … The purpose of the forfeiture rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the juvenile court so that they may be corrected.”].) However, given mother’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, our acknowledged mother did fire him “in front of everyone,” but he had not talked to her since then and continued to appear for mother

2023“The purpose of the forfeiture rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the juvenile court so that they may be corrected.” (In re Wilford J. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 742, 754 .) Although it would have been preferable for Father to raise the argument through counsel, earlier in the proceedings, Father did alert the court to his own objection, and the juvenile court did respond to his comments by providing further explanation for its ruling.

2026He asserts, however, that “the waiver rule applies only if the court described ‘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.’” (Quoting People v. Gonzalez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 745, 752 .) Defendant argues that we should not apply the forfeiture doctrine because the trial court did not provide a tentative ruling, did not articulate its reasons for finding defendant a danger to the community, and did not make any findings until after the parties made their arguments and submitted th

2026In support of his argument that the forfeiture doctrine should not be applied, defendant relies on People v. Gonzalez, supra, 31 Cal.4th at page 752 .

2026(Avila, at p. 729; People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 .) In the context of other statutory fines and fees, the Supreme Court has similarly concluded that this forfeiture rule applies to statutes that require the court to consider the defendant’s ability to pay and when the challenge implicates constitutional rights.

2026(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.

2026If so, the court should elicit a waiver of the statute as a condition of … giving the instruction.’ ” (Id., 21 Cal.4th at p. 346, fn. 5 .) But once more, the Williams court left it “to future courts … to decide the legal significance of the 5. absence of an express waiver following conviction of a time–barred lesser offense.” (Ibid.)5 Since then, two appellate courts have addressed the question left unanswered in Williams and concluded that “[w]hen the charging document does not indicate on its face the action is time–barred, the forfeiture rule applies.” (People v. Martinez (2017) 10 Cal.App.

2019Consequently, our decision in People v. Williams, supra , 21 Cal.4th 335 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 , 981 P.2d 42 , reaffirming the long-standing rule that a criminal defendant's failure to raise a statute of limitations claim prior to or at trial does not constitute a forfeiture of such a claim, is consistent with our determination in the present case that the general forfeiture doctrine is applicable to a claim of improper venue.

2022(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 717 (Waidla).) The purpose of the forfeiture rule “is to bring errors to the attention of the trial court so they may be corrected or avoided.” (People v. Gibson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1468 .) Had Teran raised this specific issue in the trial court, it is likely the prosecutor could have adequately addressed it.

2016From this, he concludes that the trial court intended to impose the minimum fine, and imposing the higher minimum fine based on a change in the law after he committed the offense constituted an impermissible ex post facto punishment. “[A] defendant’s failure to object in the trial court to the imposition of a restitution fine constitutes a waiver of the right to complain thereof on appeal.” (People v. Gibson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1469 (Gibson).) The forfeiture rule applies “to claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices.”

2025(See In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212 , 221–222 [the forfeiture rule prevents a party from standing by silently until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and then attempting to challenge an aspect of those proceedings on appeal].) 9 their commitment to keeping S.P. in his IEP.

2024“A party forfeits the right to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court.” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221 .) “Forfeiture … applies in juvenile dependency litigation and is intended to prevent a party from standing by silently until the conclusion of the proceedings.” (Id. at p. 222.) Application of the forfeiture rule is not automatic, and a reviewing court has discretion to consider forfeited claims.

2025(People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580 , 589–590.) As a result, we “ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court.” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293.) “The purpose of this rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) Although an appellate court has the discretion to excuse forfeiture, this discretion “should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal issue.” (Ibid.) Under ordinary circumstances, t

2022(Polk, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 1194 , quoting People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589-590 [one explanation for the forfeiture rule “is simply that it is unfair to the trial judge and to the adverse party to take advantage of an error on appeal when it could easily have been corrected at the trial”].) Here, the trial court made its ruling based on the recorded interviews and transcripts.

2026However, we will exercise our discretion and not apply the forfeiture rule because it will “have the effect of converting an appellate issue into a habeas corpus claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to preserve the question by timely objection.”5 (People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1128 .) 5 For this reason, in a separate order, we are summarily denying Hartman’s related petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which alleges ineffective assistance by his trial counsel for failing to object to his upper term sentence at the sentencing hearing (G065044). 24 III.

2023(See Disposition, post [instructing the trial court to issue an order striking Unruly’s fifth cross- claim]; see also People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1128 [“[J]udicial economy is a principal rationale of the forfeiture doctrine.”].)9 9 In exercising our discretion to decide whether section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2) protects Stage’s statements, we 11 2.