In what circumstances have courts inferred consent from a defendant's failure to object on a preliminary hearing transcript where the sentence was amended to include a nonincluded offence?

"Consent to the trier of fact's consideration of a nonincluded offense has been similarly inferred from a failure to object in cases involving submissions on preliminary hearing transcripts. For example, in People v. Francis, supra, 71 Cal.2d 66 [75 Cal.Rptr. 199, 450 P.2d 591], the defendant submitted on the transcript without offering additional evidence or argument and, when the trial court announced its finding of guilty on a lesser related offense, counsel thanked the court. In upholding the conviction we quoted from an earlier case presenting similar facts: ' "... defendant, represented by competent counsel, stood by and acquiesced in a procedure whereby he was forever discharged on the serious counts included in the information as originally filed, and convicted of a less serious offense. Had defendant felt that he was in any way prejudiced by the action of the trial court, he could have [210 Cal.App.3d 462] prevented the error now relied on by a simple objection.... [D]efendant's failure to object must be regarded as an implied consent to treat the information as having been amended to include the offense on which the sentence was imposed, and thus to be a waiver of the only objection--lack of notice of the offense charged--which was available to defendant." ' (71 Cal.2d at p. 75 [75 Cal.Rptr. 199, 450 P.2d 591], quoting People

Page 368