Does Oberdiear have a right to challenge the imposition of a restitution fine?

Although Oberdiear could have challenged the trial court's imposition of the restitution fine to the extent it was above the statutory minimum, "neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic." (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593; accord, In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, superseded in part by statute as stated in In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953, 962.) Here, neither the trial court nor Oberdiear's counsel had the benefit of our decision in Dueas, and the court understandably did not advise Oberdiear he had a due process right to argue he did not have the ability to pay the fine and assessments imposed. Because we must remand this case in any event to permit the trial court to resolve other issues, if the trial court resentences Oberdiear, the court shall allow Oberdiear an opportunity to request a hearing and present evidence demonstrating his inability to pay. (Cf. In re S.B., at p. 1293 [the purpose of the forfeiture rule "is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected"].)