P. v. Morrison CA4/1

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:52Z · confidence high

The trial court sentenced the defendant to 32 months in prison and imposed a $154 criminal justice administration fee under Government Code section 29550.1. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant forfeited his equal protection challenge to the fee by failing to object in the trial court and declining to exercise its discretion to review the issue in the interest of justice.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of the $154 criminal justice administration fee under Government Code section 29550.1 “Morrison did not object in the trial court to the imposition of the booking fee. He has thus forfeited his right to challenge the fee on appeal. (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593.)”	unclear	harmless error	agree with court The appellate court applied the forfeiture rule, determining that because the defendant did not object to the fee at sentencing, the issue was not preserved for appeal. The court then declined to exercise its discretion to review the unpreserved claim in the interest of justice, resulting in an affirmance of the judgment.

Authorities

• relied: People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 — Failure to object to a sentencing enhancement or fee in the trial court results in forfeiture of the right to challenge it on appeal, though the court may review the issue in the interest of justice.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the standard forfeiture rule for unpreserved sentencing objections. It relies on the controlling Supreme Court authority, People v. McCullough, to establish that the issue was forfeited and properly declines to exercise its discretion to review the merits.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Report

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The trial court sentenced Morrison to 32 months for petty theft with a prior and imposed a $154 booking fee under Government Code section 29550.1 without objection from the defendant. On appeal, Morrison argued the fee statute violated equal protection because it lacks an ability-to-pay requirement, but the Court of Appeal held the claim forfeited for lack of objection under People v. McCullough, declined to exercise discretion to reach the merits, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of a $154 criminal justice administration (booking) fee under Government Code section 29550.1 without an ability-to-pay finding, challenged on appeal on equal protection grounds “Morrison did not object in the trial court to the imposition of the booking fee. He has thus forfeited his right to challenge the fee on appeal.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The court disposed of the appeal solely on forfeiture, citing McCullough, which held that a defendant forfeits a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence of ability to pay a booking fee by failing to object. Morrison's claim, however, was a facial equal protection challenge to the statute, a pure question of law; the court did not explain why McCullough's fact-based forfeiture rationale extends to such a claim or address the pure-question-of-law exception recognized in In re Sheena K. The court has discretion to decline to reach a forfeited issue, so the result is defensible, but the reasoning is thin.

Authorities

• relied: People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 — A defendant who fails to object in the trial court to a booking fee forfeits a challenge on appeal to the sufficiency of the evidence of ability to pay; the appellate court retains discretion to reach a forfeited issue.
• missed: In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875 — A facial constitutional challenge presenting a pure question of law may be raised on appeal despite the absence of an objection in the trial court, although the appellate court retains discretion whether to reach it.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion reaches a defensible result because appellate courts may decline to consider forfeited claims and McCullough is the controlling booking-fee forfeiture authority. It skips, however, the question whether a facial equal protection challenge is a pure question of law outside the fact-based forfeiture rationale of McCullough, and does not address the Sheena K. exception.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Report