What is the test for determining whether a defendant has the ability to pay a fine under section 1202.5 of the California Criminal Code?

Initially, we reject the Attorney General's suggestion that the trial court need not determine whether the defendant has the ability to pay the fine even if the defendant raises the issue in that court. According to the Attorney General, although the first sentence of the statute imposes a mandatory duty to impose the fine, the use of the conditional word "[i]f" in the second sentence means that the court is permitted, but not required, to consider a defendant's ability to pay it. We disagree and construe the "if" clause to mean that the court can determine either that the defendant has the ability to pay the fine or does not have the ability to pay the fine; not that it may decline to determine the matter at all. (See People v. Castellanos (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1524, 1531 [under section 1202.5, "the trial court must decide whether to impose" the full fine, a lesser amount, or none at all].) So construed, the failure to make a determination of the defendant's ability to pay is error.

" 'Ordinarily, a criminal defendant who does not challenge an assertedly erroneous ruling of the trial court in that court has forfeited his or her right to raise the claim on appeal.' [Citation.]" (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 (McCullough).) This forfeiture rule applies to sentencing issues when, as a result of the defendant's failure to object, alleged factual errors were not raised or developed in the record. (Id. at p. 594.)