Does the Court have to waive the issue of sentencing to prison rather than reinstating probation?

Appellant contends the court erred in failing to state its reasons for sentencing him to state prison rather than reinstating probation. The People [46 Cal.App.4th 84] rejoin that appellant waived the issue on appeal by failing to object at the time of sentencing. (See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 352-353, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 627, 885 P.2d 1040 [waiver doctrine applies, inter alia, to claims involving the sentencing court's failure to state reasons for its sentencing choices].)

Appellant contends that in this case the issue was not waived because he did not have a meaningful opportunity to object. He relies on the following language in Scott: "Of course, there must be a meaningful opportunity to object to the kinds of claims otherwise deemed waived by today's decision. This opportunity can occur only if, during the course of the sentencing hearing itself and before objections are made, the parties are clearly apprised of the sentence the court intends to impose and the reasons that support any discretionary choices." (People v. Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 356, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 627, 885 P.2d 1040.) Appellant contends that because the court did not announce a tentative ruling of its intent to impose a prison term he was denied a meaningful opportunity to object.