Does the forfeiture rule bar appellant from challenging the sentence imposed for count 2 in case No. 09CM7180 in the Court of Appeal?

During the November 17, 2010, sentencing hearing defense counsel stated, "we intend to submit on probation's recommendation and the analysis of the [section] 654 issues as well." Although appellant did not specifically argue during the sentencing hearing that section 654 required the sentence imposed for count 2 in case No. 09CM7180 to be stayed, the forfeiture rule does not bar consideration of this sentencing challenge on appeal. "'Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as errors on appeal.' [Citation.]" (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295.) Yet, "on direct appeal the reviewing court is confined to the record. We cannot remand a case to the trial court for the purpose of trying an issue raised for the first time on appeal." (People v. Sparks (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 306, 311.)

C. Separate punishment may not be imposed for the street terrorism conviction.

Appellant argues that the sentence imposed for count 2 must be stayed pursuant to section 654. We agree.