When will a defendant lose his claim that the trial court failed to properly determine his ability to pay certain fees by failure to object?

Finally, we found defendant forfeited his claim that the trial court failed to properly determine his ability to pay certain fees by failure to object below. Defendant argues his trial counsel was ineffective in failure to object. The record is silent as to why counsel did not object. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266 [a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be rejected if " ' "the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged[,] . . . unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation" ' "].) Contrary to defendant's assertion, the record does not affirmatively disclose counsel had no rational tactical purpose for not objecting. The probation report recommended defendant be placed on 5 years' formal probation on the condition he serve a disciplinary sentence of 365 days in the Placer County Jail less credit for 68 days. At the sentencing hearing, defendant's trial counsel argued in favor of probation, as recommended in the probation report. In doing so, he asked the court to "take into serious consideration the fact that [defendant] is . . . self-employed as an air conditioning service technician [and] . . . provide[s] financial support for his family. That is reflected in the probation officer's report that it's going to severely impact his family if they are denied his income." One obvious reason for not arguing defendant lacked the ability to pay the challenged fees is that the argument conflicted with his primary argument in favor of probation.

Defendant has not established that his counsel's failure to object any of the alleged sentencing errors constituted ineffective assistance.