Is a defendant entitled to a forfeiture rule in the statute of limitations when they are convicted of a criminal offence?

We have wisely rejected such fatalistic reasoning before. In People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 627, 885 P.2d 1040, we held that complaints regarding the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons were forfeited unless challenged at the time of sentencing. (Id. at pp. 348, 356, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 627, 885 P.2d 1040.) In response to the defendant's argument that such a forfeiture rule would not promote judicial economy because any sentencing error would simply be raised on habeas corpus, presumably under the rubric of ineffective assistance of counsel, we said: "Taken to its extreme, ... this argument would theoretically excuse the defense from objecting to any error committed during a criminal trial, including evidentiary error. Existing law does not support so radical a view. The point is that by encouraging counsel to intervene at the time sentencing choices are made, we hope to reduce the number of issues raised in the reviewing court in any form." (Id. at p. 356, fn. 18, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 627, 885 P.2d 1040, original italics.) Similarly, a forfeiture rule in the statute of limitations context encourages defendant and defense counsel to decide before or during trial whether to assert the defense.