People v. Aguilar, 60 Cal. 4th 862

Background

Defendant Octavio Aguilar was convicted of corporal injury on a spouse and placed on formal probation; at sentencing the court imposed various fines and fees without objection, including: a $176 presentence investigation report fee, probation supervision up to $75/month (Pen. Code §1203.1b), a $564 booking/administrative assessment (Gov. Code §§29550–29550.1), and $500 in appointed counsel fees (Pen. Code §987.8).
The court told defendant many fees would depend on his ability to pay and advised him to meet with the probation officer and complete a financial assessment; the record does not show he did so.
On appeal Aguilar challenged the fees as imposed without a finding or evidence of ability to pay (and, for the booking fee, without evidence of actual costs), and argued he was not advised of or did not waive his right to a hearing under the statutory schemes.
The Court of Appeal rejected Aguilar’s claims; the California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether appellate forfeiture bars these challenges.
The Supreme Court held Aguilar forfeited his appellate challenges by failing to object at sentencing or pursue the post‑sentencing procedures provided by §§1203.1b and 987.8, and affirmed the Court of Appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Aguilar)	Held
Whether appellate forfeiture bars challenge to probation and appointed‑counsel fee orders	Forfeiture rule applies; objections must be raised at sentencing or in statutorily provided post‑sentencing proceedings	Forfeiture should not apply because statutes require specific notice/hearing procedures; orders enforceable as civil judgments	Held: Forfeiture applies; Aguilar forfeited his challenge by not objecting or using post‑sentencing remedies
Whether statutory procedural protections (§1203.1b, §987.8) distinguish these fees from booking fees (McCullough)	Statutory procedures do not displace the forfeiture rule; defendants still must object or use post‑sentencing process	Statutory provisions create distinct protections that should allow appellate review despite no trial objection	Held: Statutory procedures provide post‑sentencing avenues but do not negate the contemporaneous‑objection rule on appeal
Whether fee orders are exempt from forfeiture because they are enforceable as civil judgments	Enforceability like civil judgments does not relocate challenges outside the criminal sentencing context governed by forfeiture cases	Because orders are enforced like civil judgments, they should be appealable without contemporaneous objection (analogous to CCP §647 exceptions)	Held: Requiring civil‑style enforcement does not remove these orders from criminal sentencing forfeiture rules
Whether lack of record evidence or findings of actual costs (due‑process/unauthorized action) saves the claim from forfeiture	County fee schedules and court’s familiarity with trial support fee legitimacy; defendant had post‑sentencing remedies	Absent evidence/findings of actual administrative costs, fees may be punitive fines subject to different review and not forfeited	Held: No merit—trial court could rely on county fee schedules and implicitly found counsel’s services matched fee; claim forfeited and unsupported on record

Key Cases Cited

People v. McCullough, 56 Cal.4th 589 (holds challenges to booking fees are forfeited without contemporaneous objection)
People v. Butler, 31 Cal.4th 1119 (allowed appeal without contemporaneous objection where statutory scheme limited court authority—HIV testing context)
People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228 (articulates contemporaneous‑objection forfeiture principle in sentencing context)
People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (applies and discusses forfeiture rule for sentencing challenges)
People v. Poindexter, 210 Cal.App.3d 803 (addresses procedural notice and hearing requirements in post‑conviction fee proceedings)
People v. Alford, 42 Cal.4th 749 (discusses booking fees as recoupment of administrative costs)