Defendant who failed to renew ground for suppression of evidence in the trial court forfeited that issue on appeal. Appellant pled guilty to felon in possession of a weapon and ammunition, and corporal injury to a cohabitant. Prior to his plea, a magistrate heard appellant’s motion to suppress evidence gathered during a warrantless search at the preliminary hearing. A deputy testified that appellant consented to the search both orally and in writing. During the hearing the prosecution was allowed to ask an officer, over the defense’s hearsay objection, about the opinion of a questioned documents examiner that the signature on the consent form was appellant’s. The magistrate denied the motion based on its belief that appellant consented to the search. After the information was filed, appellant raised the search and seizure issue again in the trial court in a Penal Code section 995 motion to dismiss but did not argue that the magistrate erroneously admitted hearsay evidence regarding the written consent he allegedly gave to search his home. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, raising the hearsay issue. Held: Affirmed. Appeal of this alleged error was forfeited. A defendant is required to contest a magistrate’s denial of a suppression motion in the trial court to obtain direct appellate review of the magistrate’s ruling. (People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891, 896.) Given this, “the defendant cannot preserve for appeal an evidentiary issue not raised or argued in the trial court.” Here, appellant’s section 995 motion contended he did not consent to the search. He did not argue that the magistrate had erroneously admitted hearsay evidence in denying the motion. Thus, appellant did not preserve the issue for appeal.