Is a judge's failure to follow any of the statutory requirements for imposition of a fee at a disposition hearing for failing to object to the imposition of the fee?

The issue here, however, is the court's failure to follow any of the statutory requirements for imposition of the fee: The court did not order appellant's mother to appear before the financial evaluation officer at the close of the disposition hearing as required by section 903.45, subdivision (b), but simply imposed the fee. The probation officer's reports contain nothing to suggest any consideration was given to the mother's ability to pay, nor anything to suggest the amount recommended is anything other than the actual amount expended. Forfeiture of sentencing claims for failure to object in the trial court is reasonable, in large measure, because of attorneys' obligations to understand the relevant rules and advocate for their proper application. (See, People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353 [although trial court "is required to impose sentence in a lawful manner, counsel is charged with understanding, advocating, and clarifying permissible sentencing choices at the hearing"].) Here, appellant was represented by counsel and, as

Page 25