In re F.M., 528 P.3d 19

Minor F.M. admitted to several "wobbler" offenses (assault, gang participation, reckless evasion) in juvenile petitions B and C; these offenses can be sentenced as either felonies or misdemeanors under §702.
Juvenile court accepted admissions and set dispositions but did not make the on‑the‑record §702 declaration at or before disposition that each wobbler be treated as a felony or misdemeanor.
The minute order for one petition contained a generic statement that the court had "considered" felony/misdemeanor treatment; transcripts contained no express oral declaration or any discussion of exercising discretion.
Court of Appeal found §702 error but declined to remand, concluding the record showed the court was aware of and exercised its discretion (citing court statements about strikes, rejection of reinstated probation, and consideration of Division of Juvenile Justice placement).
The Attorney General argued F.M. forfeited the §702 claim by not raising it below and urged application of the Watson harmless‑error standard; the Supreme Court granted review.
Supreme Court held the Manzy W. standard controls, rejected the forfeiture argument, found the record insufficient to show awareness/exercise of discretion, reversed the Court of Appeal, and remanded for compliance with §702.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether F.M. forfeited his §702 claim by failing to raise it in juvenile court	Forfeited under sentencing‑error principles (Scott): unraised procedural sentencing errors are forfeited unless sentence was unauthorized.	Not forfeited: timely appeal preserves the claim; applying forfeiture would render most §702 claims unreviewable.	Not forfeited here; G.C. does not bar timely appeals and forfeiture rule does not automatically apply to §702 claims.
Proper harmless‑error standard for §702 violations	Apply Watson (reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome).	Rely on Manzy W.: remand required unless record shows the juvenile court "was aware of, and exercised its discretion" as to each wobbler.	Reaffirmed Manzy W.: Watson does not apply; error is harmless only if record shows the court was aware of and exercised its §702 discretion.
Whether the record here showed the court was aware of and exercised §702 discretion so remand was unnecessary	Record shows awareness/exercise (felony allegations, minute order language, court remarks about "strike" exposure, consideration of DJJ placement, rejection of probation).	No on‑the‑record declaration; pleadings, minute orders, or punishment consistent with felony do not substitute for the required declaration.	Record insufficient under Manzy W.; minute order and other indicia do not prove the required awareness/exercise of discretion. Remand required.

In re Manzy W., 14 Cal.4th 1199 (Cal. 1997) (§702 requires on‑record declaration; remand unless record shows court was aware of and exercised discretion)
In re G.C., 8 Cal.5th 1119 (Cal. 2020) (§702 declaration must be made before or at disposition; clarified limits on post‑appeal review)
In re Ricky H., 30 Cal.3d 176 (Cal. 1981) (pleading, minutes, or felony‑level confinement cannot substitute for an express §702 declaration)
In re Kenneth H., 33 Cal.3d 616 (Cal. 1983) (reversed and remanded where court never stated it treated the wobbler as a felony)
People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 334 (Cal. 1994) (forfeiture principles for sentencing claims)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (harmless‑error standard based on reasonable probability — held inapplicable to §702 errors here)
People v. Champion, 9 Cal.4th 879 (Cal. 1995) (contrast: harmlessness in sentencing when court would clearly have imposed same sentence)
People v. Avalos, 37 Cal.3d 216 (Cal. 1984) (contrast: remand unnecessary where other aggravating factors plainly support the sentence)