Does Pesti's failure to object to an order issued by the Superior Court of Appeal constitute an unauthorized sentence?

Pesti's failure to object did not forfeit his claim because the trial court's order constituted an unauthorized sentence. "[T]he 'unauthorized sentence' concept constitutes a narrow exception to the general requirement that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal." (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354.) "Although the cases are varied, a sentence is generally 'unauthorized' where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case. Appellate courts are willing to intervene in the first instance because such error is 'clear and correctable' independent of any factual issues presented by the record at sentencing." (Ibid.) The parties stipulated to the facts of the offenses below, and the question presented on appeal is purely a matter of law. We conclude we may address the substance of Pesti's claim, the merits of which the Attorney General does not dispute.