How has the waiver doctrine been interpreted in the context of an aggravated assault case?

The Attorney General points out defendant forfeited this claim by failing to raise it at his sentencing. (See Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 352-353 [waiver doctrine applies to claims involving the trial court's failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices, including failing to state any reasons or give a sufficient number of valid reasons].) In any event, the nature of and methods used in the attack in this case did exceed the bare elements of the mayhem offense. This was a particularly aggravated and heinous crime. Defendant repeatedly struck the victim's head, severing the ear cartilage, and cruelly doused her face and eyes with sulfuric acid. Defendant's assertion "[t]here was nothing about the 'methods used' by [him] to commit the crime which made it distinctively worse than ordinary" flies in the face of the facts proven at trial. Imposition of an aggravated term was more than justified in this case. (See People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, 813 ["the existence of a single aggravating circumstance is legally sufficient to make the defendant eligible for the upper term"].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Page 14

/s/_________
Margulies, J.

We concur:

/s/_________
Humes, P.J.

/s/_________
Banke, J.

Footnotes:

^1. All statutory references are to the the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.