The Supreme Court this morning filed its opinions in People v. Trujillo and People v. Aguilar. In opinions written by Justice Kathryn Werdegar, the court unanimously holds in both cases that, by not objecting in the trial court to the imposition of various fees, the defendants forfeited their right to challenge those fees on appeal. (In Trujillo, the fees were a presentence investigation fee and probation supervision fees; in Aguilar, they were attorney fees, a booking fee, and probation supervision fees.)
In the Trujillo opinion, the court distinguishes other rights that cannot be waived by silence — e.g., against compulsory self-incrimination, to trial by jury, to confront one’s accusers, to have counsel, and to appeal. Stating that “[k]nowing and intelligent waivers are generally required when a criminal defendant gives up ‘any significant right,’ ” the court concludes that, “[h]ere, no comparably significant right is at stake.”
Just a week ago, the court held that the Attorney General had not waived a harmless error argument by failing to make the argument in her appellate brief. Today, the Attorney General successfully asserts waiver against defendants who are belatedly challenging fees. The situations are, of course, distinguishable, but the temporal juxtaposition of the Attorney General’s wins is unfortunate.
