Is Lua considered to have consented to amendment of the elements of section 136.1, subdivision (c)?

Finally, we reject the People's forfeiture argument. Had we determined Lua impliedly consented to amendment of the information by acceding to jury instructions and a verdict form on the elements of section 136.1, subdivision (c), we would need to determine whether he forfeited his argument that this amendment provided inadequate notice he was subject to a life sentence. Instead, however, we have found no informal amendment, and are left only with the question of whether the sentence imposed for violation of section 136.1, subdivision (b) exceeds the maximum statutory sentence. This claim involves a question of law and is not subject to the ordinary forfeiture rule. (People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26.)