Does this court have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order requiring defendant to obtain a prescription medication?

The People further contend this court has no jurisdiction because defendant never challenged the medication order on the ground, now raised on appeal, that the evidence to support the medication order was insufficient because the

[190 Cal.App.4th 1047]

evidence did not identify the specific medication proposed to be administered or its specific side effects. To support their argument, the People cite section 1469, which is part of the title and chapter of the Penal Code addressing appeals in misdemeanor and infraction cases and is therefore, on its face, inapplicable. We presume the intended cite was to section 1259, which addresses appeals in felony cases in language similar to that of section 1469. Section 1259 states: "Upon an appeal taken by the defendant, the appellate court may, without exception having been taken in the trial court, review any question of law involved in any ruling, order, instruction, or thing whatsoever said or done at the trial or prior to or after judgment, which thing was said or done after objection made in and considered by the lower court, and which affected the substantial rights of the defendant." Here, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's order. It is axiomatic that such a challenge does not require that an objection was made in the trial court. (See People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1126-1128, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 730, 79 P.3d 1036.)

[190 Cal.App.4th 1047]

We conclude that we have jurisdiction to consider defendant's claims in this appeal.