What is the current state of the law on sentencing under the forfeiture doctrine?

"Although a single factor may be relevant to more than one sentencing choice, such dual or overlapping use is prohibited to some extent. For example, the court generally cannot use a single fact both to aggravate the base term and to impose an enhancement, nor may it use a fact constituting an element of the offense either to aggravate or to enhance a sentence. [Citations.]" (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350.)

"'[C]omplaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.' [Citation.] 'Included [within the (forfeiture) doctrine] are cases in which the stated reasons allegedly do not apply to the particular case, and cases in which the court purportedly erred because it double-counted a particular sentencing factor, misweighed the various factors, or failed to state any reasons or give a sufficient number of valid reasons.' [Citation.]" (People v. De Soto (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) "'Improper dual use of the same fact for imposition of both an upper term and a consecutive term or other enhancement does not necessitate resentencing if "[i]t is not reasonably probable that a more favorable sentence would have been imposed in the absence of the error."' [Citation.]" (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 728.)

Page 6