What is the forfeiture of a claim that sentencing violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial?

As to forfeiture of a claim that sentencing violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, the court has said that "[w]e long have applied the rule that... challenges to procedures... normally are forfeited unless timely raised in the trial court," subject to a very limited exception "'when the pertinent law later changed so unforeseeably that it is unreasonable to expect trial counsel to have anticipated the change.' [Citations.]" (People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, 810.) Defendant makes no claim that later changes in the law justified his failure to object. We conclude that defendant forfeited the issues he raises regarding imposition of the upper term. (Black, supra, at p. 810; People v. Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 353, 356.)

We disagree with defendant's contention that his attorney's failure to object to the upper term sentence constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. "To secure reversal of a conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, to a reasonable probability, defendant would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel's shortcomings." (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1068.)