omissions defense in California

2015(People v. Mitchell (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 442, 467 .) “It is not sufficient to allege merely that the attorney’s tactics were poor, or that the case might have been handled more effectively. [Citations.] [¶] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” (People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 , disapproved on other grounds by People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 287, fn. 36 .) As discussed, ante, it is clear that defendant was n

2015His burden to establish ineffective assistance of counsel is a heavy one. 39 “[D]efendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” (People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 , disapproved on another point in People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 287, fn. 36 ..) A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is cognizable on direct appeal only if “ ‘there simply could be no satisfactory explanation’ [citation] . . . .” (People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

2015(People v. Mitchell (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 442, 467 .) “It is not sufficient to allege merely that the attorney’s tactics were poor, or that the case might have been handled more effectively. [Citations.] [¶] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” (People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 , disapproved on other grounds by People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 287, fn. 36 .) As discussed, ante, it is clear that defendant was n

2015His burden to establish ineffective assistance of counsel is a heavy one. 39 “[D]efendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” (People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 , disapproved on another point in People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 287, fn. 36 ..) A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is cognizable on direct appeal only if “ ‘there simply could be no satisfactory explanation’ [citation] . . . .” (People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

1976In order to justify relief on the ground of inadequate representation of counsel, it must appear that counsel’s lack of diligence reduced the trial to a “farce or sham.” (People v, Stanworth, 11 Cal.3d 588, 612-613 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 250 , 522 P.2d 1058 ]; People v. Ibarra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 464 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 863 , 386 P.2d 487 ].) “It is not sufficient to allege merely that the attorney’s tactics were poor, or that the case might have been handled more effectively. [Citations.] [H] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and th

1976In order to justify relief on the ground of inadequate representation of counsel, it must appear that counsel’s lack of diligence reduced the trial to a “farce or sham.” (People v, Stanworth, 11 Cal.3d 588, 612-613 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 250 , 522 P.2d 1058 ]; People v. Ibarra, 60 Cal.2d 460, 464 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 863 , 386 P.2d 487 ].) “It is not sufficient to allege merely that the attorney’s tactics were poor, or that the case might have been handled more effectively. [Citations.] [H] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and th

2014(In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 766 .) It is not enough to allege that an attorney’s tactics were poor or that the case might have been handled differently; the defendant must “‘affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.’” (People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 288 .) Analysis Appellant cannot demonstrate either that her defense counsel performed deficiently or that she was prejudiced by her counsel’s actions.

2003(People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 424-425 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 ]; People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 546 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 778 P.2d 129 ].) In order to show deficient representation, appellant “must ‘affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a crucial issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 289 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 901 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 , 15

2014Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.’ ” (People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828 (overruled on other grounds in People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610 ).) Here, the Attorney General argues that defense counsel had tactical reasons for declining to object to the introduction of Inspector Philpott’s aggressive questioning.

2013A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.‘ ‖ (Id. at pp. 217–218, quoting Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 693–694.) Furthermore, it is not our role to second-guess trial counsel or simply determine the matter could have been handled differently or more effectively. ― ‗Rather, the defendant must show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.‖ (People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814 , 828–829, judg. vacated and

1993In addition, [he] must establish that counsel’s acts or omissions resulted in the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious defense.” ’ (People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 581 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 855 , 659 P.2d 1144 ].) “Ordinarily, matters involving trial tactics are not subject to judicial hindsight and the courts will not attempt to second-guess trial counsel.... ‘It is not sufficient to allege merely that the attorney’s tactics were poor, or that the case might have been handled more effectively. [Citations.] [][] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense

1993In addition, [he] must establish that counsel’s acts or omissions resulted in the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious defense.” ’ (People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 581 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 855 , 659 P.2d 1144 ].) “Ordinarily, matters involving trial tactics are not subject to judicial hindsight and the courts will not attempt to second-guess trial counsel.... ‘It is not sufficient to allege merely that the attorney’s tactics were poor, or that the case might have been handled more effectively. [Citations.] [][] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense

1990(People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516-517 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ].) “It is not sufficient to allege merely that the attorney’s tactics were poor, or that the case might have been handled more effectively. [Citations.] [^[] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” (People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; In re Julius B. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 395, 402 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 341 ].) *1

1990(People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504, 516-517 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 503 P.2d 1353 ].) “It is not sufficient to allege merely that the attorney’s tactics were poor, or that the case might have been handled more effectively. [Citations.] [^[] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” (People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; In re Julius B. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 395, 402 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 341 ].) *1

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

2014Defendant does not explain why he did not subpoena her. 17 In order to prove a claim of inadequate representation, a defendant must show that “trial counsel failed to act in a manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys acting as diligent advocates.” (People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 .) Effective and competent representation requires “counsel’s ‘diligence and active participation in the full and effective preparation of his client’s case.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 424–425.) We will reverse a conviction on the ground of inadequate counsel only if the defendant affirmatively

2014Defendant does not explain why he did not subpoena her. 17 In order to prove a claim of inadequate representation, a defendant must show that “trial counsel failed to act in a manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys acting as diligent advocates.” (People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 .) Effective and competent representation requires “counsel’s ‘diligence and active participation in the full and effective preparation of his client’s case.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 424–425.) We will reverse a conviction on the ground of inadequate counsel only if the defendant affirmatively

2025These claims are therefore forfeited. 17 (People v. Blomdahl (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1248 [“ ‘ “It is not sufficient to allege merely that the attorney’s tactics were poor, or that the case might have been handled more effectively. [Citations.] [¶] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” ’ ”]; People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 825 [“Defendant’s contention his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to

2021Rather the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” (People v. Blomdahl (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1248 , internal quotation marks, edit marks, and citations omitted.) “ ‘[D]eciding whether to object is inherently tactical, and the failure to object will rarely establish ineffective assistance.’ ” (People v. Lopez (2008) 42 Cal.4th 960, 972 .) Here, the complained-of question did not “involve a critical issue” and was very brief, especially

2015(Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 917, fn. 12 .) 4. [¶] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” (People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 287, fn. 36 .) “Where, as here, a defendant is represented by counsel during the plea process and enters his plea upon the advice of counsel, the voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel’s advice ‘was within

2013A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.‘ ‖ (Id. at pp. 217–218, quoting Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 693–694.) Furthermore, it is not our role to second-guess trial counsel or simply determine the matter could have been handled differently or more effectively. ― ‗Rather, the defendant must show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.‖ (People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814 , 828–829, judg. vacated and

2013(People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 ; People v. Penrod (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 738, 751 .) A defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.

1980Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any *829 knowledgeable choice of tactics." ( People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 608 , 464 P.2d 64 ]; see also People v. Williams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 894, 905 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 208 , 471 P.2d 1008 ]; In re Williams (1969) 1 Cal.3d 168, 176 [ 81 Cal. Rptr. 784 , 460 P.2d 984 ]; People v. Hill (1969) 70 Cal.2d 678, 690-691 [ 76 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 452 P.2d 329 ]; People v. Reeves (1966) 64 Cal.2d 766, 773 [ 51 Cal. R

2013A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.‘ ‖ (Id. at pp. 217–218, quoting Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 693–694.) Furthermore, it is not our role to second-guess trial counsel or simply determine the matter could have been handled differently or more effectively. ― ‗Rather, the defendant must show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.‖ (People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814 , 828–829, judg. vacated and

1988Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Lanphear (1980) 26 Cal.3d 814, 828-829 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 601 , 608 P.2d 689 ], reiterated at 28 Cal.3d 463, 464 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 505 , 622 P.2d 950 ].) A showing of this kind is presented here.

2025These claims are therefore forfeited. 17 (People v. Blomdahl (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1248 [“ ‘ “It is not sufficient to allege merely that the attorney’s tactics were poor, or that the case might have been handled more effectively. [Citations.] [¶] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” ’ ”]; People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 825 [“Defendant’s contention his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to

2015(Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 917, fn. 12 .) 4. [¶] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” (People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 287, fn. 36 .) “Where, as here, a defendant is represented by counsel during the plea process and enters his plea upon the advice of counsel, the voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel’s advice ‘was within

2015(Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 917, fn. 12 .) 4. [¶] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” (People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 287, fn. 36 .) “Where, as here, a defendant is represented by counsel during the plea process and enters his plea upon the advice of counsel, the voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel’s advice ‘was within

2015(Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 917, fn. 12 .) 4. [¶] Rather, the defendant must affirmatively show that the omissions of defense counsel involved a critical issue, and that the omissions cannot be explained on the basis of any knowledgeable choice of tactics.” (People v. Floyd (1970) 1 Cal.3d 694, 709 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 287, fn. 36 .) “Where, as here, a defendant is represented by counsel during the plea process and enters his plea upon the advice of counsel, the voluntariness of the plea depends on whether counsel’s advice ‘was within

2015In other words, in order to satisfy the ‘prejudice’ requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty [or no contest] and would have insisted on going to trial.” (Hill, supra, 474 U.S. at p. 59 , fn. omitted; In re Resdendiz (2001) 25 Cal.4th 230, 253 , abrogated on another ground in Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356, 370-371 .) “[A] defendant’s self- serving statement—after trial, conviction, and sentence—that with competent advice he or she would [not] have accepted a proffered plea bargain, is i