California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Bautista, 63 Cal.App.4th 865, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 370 (Cal. App. 1998):
"Defendant further claims that a rule requiring a contemporaneous objection to defects in the court's statement of reasons is impractical. He insists it is unrealistic to expect counsel to comprehend, remember, and respond to the various sentencing factors and choices delivered orally by the court at the hearing. Defendant also asserts that courts typically solicit argument from counsel before pronouncing sentence, and that attempts to challenge the court's ruling after it is announced are usually discouraged or futile. [p] We [63 Cal.App.4th 869] recognize that pronouncement of sentence is a highly technical process encompassing a wide variety of procedural and substantive matters. Various manuals and rules of court instruct trial judges on the precise nature, chronology, and form of issues to be addressed at sentencing. As defendant suggests, and so far as we can tell, such materials generally provide no guidance on whether or how the court should accommodate objections by the parties to its statement of reasons and sentencing choices. [Citations.] [p] Of course, there must be a meaningful opportunity to object to the kinds of claims otherwise deemed waived by today's decision. This opportunity can occur only if, during the course of the sentencing hearing itself and before objections are made, the parties are clearly apprised of the sentence the court intends to impose and the reasons that support any discretionary choices." (People v. Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 355-356, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 627, 885 P.2d 1040; italics original; underscoring added.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.