Does a party have a right to object on the basis of forfeiture?

^2. We also need not decide the issue of forfeiture raised by respondent and discussed by both appellant and respondent at oral argument. Respondent argues that although the trial court is required to give a statement explaining its decision to revoke probation and impose a prison sentence, Rodriguez forfeited his right to object on these ground by failing to complain about the lack of a statement. We need not decide this issue as Rodriguez did not raise this argument in his briefing except in a brief reference as part of his argument that the prison sentence imposed was unnecessarily harsh. (See Wurzl v. Holloway (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1740, 1754, fn. 1 [a point not presented in the appealing party's brief is deemed abandoned or waived]; In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 410 [merely stating a ruling is error without explanation or analysis is insufficient to present the issue for review].)