## Facts

- Clifford Albert Scott lived with his girlfriend and her children and became the primary caretaker while the girlfriend was incarcerated.
- The girlfriend’s 11-year-old daughter reported repeated sexual abuse over several months, including intercourse and, on some occasions, additional fondling and oral copulation.
- The prosecution charged Scott with multiple counts of committing lewd acts on a child under 14 (Cal. Penal Code § 288), including counts alleged to involve force or fear.
- A jury convicted Scott on 13 of 14 § 288 counts; he also admitted prior convictions and a prior prison term allegation.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 44 years, using upper terms and consecutive sentences and citing aggravating circumstances (including threats, violent conduct, and prior convictions).
- Scott did not contemporaneously object to all of the trial court’s discretionary sentencing choices or stated reasons.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant forfeits appellate review of nonjurisdictional, discretionary sentencing errors by failing to make a contemporaneous objection at sentencing.
2. Whether separate convictions and punishments under Penal Code § 288 may be based on multiple distinct lewd acts occurring during a single sexual encounter, or whether some acts must be treated as a single offense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California held that, absent a timely objection, claims of error in the trial court’s discretionary sentencing choices and stated reasons are forfeited on appeal when the asserted error was correctable at sentencing.
- The Court distinguished “unauthorized sentences” (illegal under any circumstance) from correctable discretionary errors; only the former may be challenged for the first time on appeal.
- The Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s approach that treated certain fondling acts as duplicative of intercourse during the same incident.
- The Court held that multiple, distinct lewd acts may support multiple § 288 convictions and sentences even if committed in a single encounter.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s striking of two fondling-based convictions, reinstated those counts, and otherwise left the judgment and sentence substantially intact.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant must make a contemporaneous sentencing objection to preserve for appeal claims that the trial court misapplied discretionary sentencing rules or inadequately stated reasons, when the asserted error could have been corrected at the hearing.
- Appellate review is not forfeited for “unauthorized sentences,” meaning sentences that are unlawful in any circumstance (e.g., contrary to a mandatory statutory command or exceeding lawful limits).
- Under Penal Code § 288, each distinct lewd or lascivious touching may constitute a separate offense; multiple convictions are permitted for multiple completed lewd acts during a single incident, so long as the counts are based on separate acts rather than duplicative descriptions of the same conduct.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a contemporaneous-objection rule for most discretionary, nonjurisdictional sentencing complaints while reaffirming that only truly unauthorized sentences remain reviewable without objection, and it permitted multiple § 288 convictions where the evidence showed multiple distinct lewd acts within the same sexual encounter.


People v. Scott, 9 Cal. 4th 331 (Cal. 1994)