Can a minor argue Arbuckle on appeal against sentencing that was improperly assigned to another judge for disposition?

The requirement of a contemporaneous objection has been applied to the Arbuckle right. To argue Arbuckle on appeal when improperly assigned to another judge for disposition, a minor must have moved for reassignment to the judge to whom his admission was given, or have objected to the new judge. (People v. West (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 987, 992, 165 Cal.Rptr.

Page 66

There is an exception to the waiver of Arbuckle on appeal for the failure to make a contemporaneous objection. People v. Rosaia (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 832, 840, 203 Cal.Rptr. 856, holds that: "Nevertheless, fairness dictates that before accepting silence or acquiescence in sentencing by a different judge as a waiver, the court must satisfy itself from the record that defendant knew he had the right to be sentenced by the same judge who took his plea. The court cannot reasonably assume or speculate that the defendant had the requisite knowledge of his Arbuckle rights even if represented by an attorney. [Citation.] [p] The preferable way to assure that [165 Cal.App.3d 919] the record reflects defendant's knowledge of his Arbuckle rights is for the judge who takes the plea to advise defendant of those rights at the time he takes the plea."