forfeiture rule in California

2026We further recognize that application of the forfeiture rule is discretionary (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887, fn. 7 ) and an exception to the rule exists where the claimed error is “capable of correction without reference to the particular sentencing record developed in the trial court,” and is a pure question of law “easily remediable on appeal by modification of the condition” (id. at pp. 887, 888).

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.

2026As a general rule, “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.” (People v. 7 Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356 .) Because Knighten makes no argument that his sentence is unauthorized, and therefore falls within a narrow exception to the forfeiture rule, we also find that Knighten’s argument is forfeited because it was not raised before the trial court.

2026Under the doctrine of forfeiture, “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.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 , 356.) “Although the court is required to impose sentence in a lawful manner, counsel is charged with understanding, advocating, and clarifying permissible sentencing choices at the hearing.” (Id., at p. 353.) Here, Alejandre did not argue to the trial court that the public safety analysis is “forward looking” – either in his resentencing brief, or

2026What he is arguing for was required by statute. (§ 1170, subds. (b)(2), (b)(5).) In any event, “neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic.” (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 .) An appellate court may choose to “refrain from applying the forfeiture bar,” under its discretion.

2026What he is arguing for was required by statute. (§ 1170, subds. (b)(2), (b)(5).) In any event, “neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic.” (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 .) An appellate court may choose to “refrain from applying the forfeiture bar,” under its discretion.

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

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

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 ‘

2025“A defendant may forfeit a right in a criminal case by failing to timely assert the right before the tribunal with jurisdiction to determine it.” (People v. Brown, supra, 101 Cal.App.5th at p. 126, citing People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 856 .) “The forfeiture doctrine is a ‘well-established procedural principle that, with certain 7. exceptions, an appellate court will not consider claims of error that could have been—but were not—raised in the trial court. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Strong policy reasons support this rule: ‘It is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error

2026Traditional objection and waiver principles encourage development of the record and a proper exercise of discretion in the trial court.” (Welch, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 236 .) The forfeiture rule applies differently depending on the type of challenge to a probation condition, with the purpose of encouraging parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court so they may be immediately corrected.

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

2025(See People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 434 (Partida) [“ ‘ “[D]efendant’s failure to make a timely and specific objection” on the ground asserted on appeal makes that ground not cognizable’ ”].) However, to avoid the forfeiture doctrine, defendant alternatively contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to object to Love’s testimony regarding both a child sexual assault victim’s demeanor and “grooming.” As we discuss in detail below, because trial counsel had a tactical reason for not objecting to the evidence, we conclude defendant did not receive i

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.

2026“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 .) 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’ [citation].” (Ibid.) In the context of criminal sentencing, this forfeiture rule applies “to claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices.

2026A. Applicable Law “The forfeiture rule generally applies in all civil and criminal proceedings. [Citation.] The rule is designed to advance efficiency and deter gamesmanship.” (Keener v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 247, 264 (Keener).) In the special verdict context, the line between forfeiture and preservation hinges on the type of alleged defect. 16 Generally, “if the alleged defect was apparent at the time the verdict was rendered and could have been corrected” had the issue been brought to the trial court’s attention, then “failure to object to [it] before the discharge of [the] jury a

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

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.

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.

2026We conclude that Mother both forfeited her argument and invited any presumed error. “[A]s a general rule, a party is precluded from urging on appeal any point not raised in the trial court.” (In re Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403 , 411-412; accord, In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 , superseded on other grounds as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953 , 962-963; In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502 .) The forfeiture rule is based on fairness—“ ‘It is unfair to the trial judge and to the adverse party to take advantage of an alleged error on appeal where it could eas

2026(See In re Wilford J. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 742, 754 [“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 Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 501-502 [collecting numerous dependency cases in “wide variety of contexts” in which appellate courts applied the waiver/forfeiture doctrine].) We review a juvenile court’s placement decision for abuse of discretion.

2026“It is axiomatic that arguments not raised in the trial court are forfeited on appeal.” (Kern County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Camacho (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1038.) “The forfeiture rule generally applies in all civil and criminal proceedings. [Citations.] The rule is designed to advance efficiency and deter gamesmanship.” (Keener v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 247, 264.) “[T]he purpose of the forfeiture rule ‘is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.’” (Unzueta v. Akopyan (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 199, 215, quoti

2026“It is axiomatic that arguments not raised in the trial court are forfeited on appeal.” (Kern County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Camacho (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1038.) “The forfeiture rule generally applies in all civil and criminal proceedings. [Citations.] The rule is designed to advance efficiency and deter gamesmanship.” (Keener v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 247, 264.) “[T]he purpose of the forfeiture rule ‘is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected.’” (Unzueta v. Akopyan (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 199, 215, quoti

2022(People v. Montes (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1107 , 1119; but see People v. Frandsen, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 1154 [“Dueñas was foreseeable.

2021(See, e.g., People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 489 ; People v. Johnson (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 134, 137-138 ; but see, e.g., People v. Frandsen (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1126, 1153-1154 [concluding forfeiture applied].) In this case, however, there is no basis for Smith to avoid the forfeiture rule that applies when a defendant fails to raise a challenge at sentencing to the ability to pay fines and fees.

2026(See In re Wilford J. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 742, 754 [“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 Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 501-502 [collecting numerous dependency cases in “wide variety of contexts” in which appellate courts applied the waiver/forfeiture doctrine].) We review a juvenile court’s placement decision for abuse of discretion.

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

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.

2026“The forfeiture doctrine is a ‘well-established procedural principle that, with certain 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 .) Notwithstanding any forfeiture at the 2025 sentencing hearing, however, appellant will have an opportunity to raise these claims upon remand for resentencing so that the trial court may consider them in the first instance.

2026If any other rule were to obtain, the party would in most cases be careful to be silent as to his objections until it would be too late to obviate them, and the result would be that few judgments would stand the test of an appeal.”’”’” (People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114 ; accord, People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214 , 239-240; People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46 .) The policy reasons underlying the forfeiture doctrine fully support its application where, as here, a defendant remains silent in the trial court when sentenced and then seeks to obtain appellate relief based o

2026(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].) Accordingly, minor has not demonstrated she was prejudiced by the court holding a periodic review hearing based on the notice and report provided to minor.

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.

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 .

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

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.

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.

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(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.

2026(See People v. Lashon, supra, 98 Cal.App.5th at pp. 810–816 [section 745 claims are subject to the forfeiture rule].) B.

2026Apr. 17, 2024, S283852; id. at pp. 816 & 812 [rejecting argument that the defendant’s claim under the RJA presented a “pure question of law,” and concluding that review of an RJA claim “like any other appellate claim, is subject to the general appellate rules of preservation and forfeiture of claims that could have been but were not made in the trial court”]; People v. Lawson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 990 , 1000–1001 [collecting appellate decisions agreeing with Lashon and observing that no published case has disagreed with the decision].) We are not persuaded that any exception to the forfeiture