risk of a limiting instruction in California

2026(People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 394 [“A reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction … outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide.”]; People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 432 [objection and request for admonition “runs the risk of drawing the jury’s attention to an improper line of argument”].) Here, counsel was not asked to provide a reason for his omissions, and this is not a case where the record discloses no rational tactical purpose for the omissions or that there could be no satisfactory explanation.

2025Alternatively, given that the gang testimony was relevant to establish motive for the shooting, counsel may have “‘tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction . . . outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide.’” (People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1053 , quoting People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 394 .) As such, we cannot say that counsel was deficient for failing to request a limiting instruction.

2016(People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 217 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 404 , 729 P.2d 839 ] [defendant must establish prejudice to obtain relief on an ineffective assistance claim].) Lewd or Lascivious Act Instruction * The Accusatory Pleadings Test * Ineffective Assistance of Counsel * Cumulative Error * DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2016(People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 217 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 404 , 729 P.2d 839 ] [defendant must establish prejudice to obtain relief on an ineffective assistance claim].) Lewd or Lascivious Act Instruction * The Accusatory Pleadings Test * Ineffective Assistance of Counsel * Cumulative Error * DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2023Numerous courts have rejected similar ineffective assistance claims where the record is silent as to why trial counsel failed to request the limiting instruction, reasoning that “ ‘[a] reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction … outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide.’ ” (People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1053 ; see also People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 878 [“Defendant also complains that counsel’s failure to request a limiting instruction concerning his prior murder conviction demonstrated ineffectiv

2022(See People v. Hinton, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 878 ; Hernandez, at p. 1053.) The record does not “affirmatively disclose[ ] counsel had no rational tactical purpose for” declining to request the addition of the word “only” to the trial court’s CALCRIM No. 316 instruction or declining to request an additional limiting instruction.

2020(See People v. Ferraez (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 925, 934 [no ineffective assistance of counsel because “a limiting instruction would have added little to the jury’s understanding of the case [and] the decision not to request one was a reasonable tactical choice by defense counsel to avoid directing the jury to focus on the evidence”]; People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 394 [“A reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction . . . outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide”].) We thus conclude defendant’s trial counsel was not

2020(See, e.g., People v. Hinton, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 878 [failure to request limiting instruction on evidence of 43 prior murder conviction not ineffective assistance because “the instructions given were adequate to guide the jury’s use of the prior conviction” and “counsel may have deemed it unwise to call further attention to it”]; People v. Ferraez (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 925, 934 [no ineffective assistance because a “limiting instruction would have added little to the jury’s understanding of the case [and] the decision not to request one was a reasonable tactical choice by defense counsel

2025(Freeman, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 495 ; accord, People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 394 [“A reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction . . . outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide.”].) Without additional evidence of defense counsel’s reasoning or lack thereof, we are unable to conclude on direct appeal that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to propose an instruction limiting the use of Hardy’s testimony.

2020(See, e.g., People v. Hinton, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 878 [failure to request limiting instruction on evidence of 43 prior murder conviction not ineffective assistance because “the instructions given were adequate to guide the jury’s use of the prior conviction” and “counsel may have deemed it unwise to call further attention to it”]; People v. Ferraez (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 925, 934 [no ineffective assistance because a “limiting instruction would have added little to the jury’s understanding of the case [and] the decision not to request one was a reasonable tactical choice by defense counsel

2003(See People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 394 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561 , 68 P.3d 1 ] [defense counsel not incompetent for failing to request a limiting instruction on cross-admissible evidence where a “reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction ... outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide”]; People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 942 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 897 P.2d 574 ], overruled on other grounds in People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 89 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 451 , 999 P.2d 675 ]; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1,

2003(See People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 394 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561 , 68 P.3d 1 ] [defense counsel not incompetent for failing to request a limiting instruction on cross-admissible evidence where a “reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction ... outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide”]; People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 942 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 897 P.2d 574 ], overruled on other grounds in People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 89 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 451 , 999 P.2d 675 ]; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1,

2026(People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 394 [“A reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction … outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide.”]; People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 432 [objection and request for admonition “runs the risk of drawing the jury’s attention to an improper line of argument”].) Here, counsel was not asked to provide a reason for his omissions, and this is not a case where the record discloses no rational tactical purpose for the omissions or that there could be no satisfactory explanation.

2026(People v. Dunn, supra, 18 Cal.5th at p. 169.) The record reflects defense counsel was well aware that the identity of the robber was the central issue in this case.

2025As the Court of Appeal reasoned in Mateo, in concluding defense counsel might have had a tactical reason for not requesting CALCRIM No. 1193, “As a tactical matter, competent counsel could rationally conclude that it would be counterproductive to request an instruction highlighting expert testimony supporting the victim’s credibility. ‘A reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction . . . outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide.’” (Mateo, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 1076 ; accord, People v. Venegas (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 3

2023Numerous courts have rejected similar ineffective assistance claims where the record is silent as to why trial counsel failed to request the limiting instruction, reasoning that “ ‘[a] reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction … outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide.’ ” (People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1053 ; see also People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 878 [“Defendant also complains that counsel’s failure to request a limiting instruction concerning his prior murder conviction demonstrated ineffectiv

2020(See People v. Griggs (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1141 [“[W]hether to seek a limiting instruction is a tactical decision properly left to defense counsel, since defense counsel might conclude that the risk of a limiting instruction (unnecessarily highlighting a defendant’s status as a felon) 47 outweighed the questionable benefits such an instruction would provide.”].) Affording great deference to defense counsel, we cannot say Booker’s attorney had no rational tactical purpose for his failure to object to the evidence.

2020(Mickel, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 198; Caro, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 514 .) F. The Record Does Not Support Remand for Resentencing Pursuant to Section 12022.53, Subdivision (h) Booker and Lewis contend remand is necessary to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to strike the greater of the firearm enhancements imposed as part of their sentences (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and instead to impose a lesser enhancement (id., subd. (b) or (c)).

2016(See People v. Stewart (2004) 33 Cal.4th 425, 495 [“when the appellate record does not preclude a satisfactory explanation for counsel’s actions, we will not find that trial counsel acted deficiently”].) Furthermore, we find no prejudice from the failure to request a limiting instruction.

2003(See People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 394 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561 , 68 P.3d 1 ] [defense counsel not incompetent for failing to request a limiting instruction on cross-admissible evidence where a “reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction ... outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide”]; People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 942 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 897 P.2d 574 ], overruled on other grounds in People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 89 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 451 , 999 P.2d 675 ]; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1,

2003(See People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 394 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561 , 68 P.3d 1 ] [defense counsel not incompetent for failing to request a limiting instruction on cross-admissible evidence where a “reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction ... outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide”]; People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 942 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 897 P.2d 574 ], overruled on other grounds in People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 89 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 451 , 999 P.2d 675 ]; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1,

2003(See People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 394 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561 , 68 P.3d 1 ] [defense counsel not incompetent for failing to request a limiting instruction on cross-admissible evidence where a “reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction ... outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide”]; People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 942 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 897 P.2d 574 ], overruled on other grounds in People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 89 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 451 , 999 P.2d 675 ]; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1,

2003(See People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 394 [ 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561 , 68 P.3d 1 ] [defense counsel not incompetent for failing to request a limiting instruction on cross-admissible evidence where a “reasonable attorney may have tactically concluded that the risk of a limiting instruction ... outweighed the questionable benefits such instruction would provide”]; People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 942 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 897 P.2d 574 ], overruled on other grounds in People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 89 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 451 , 999 P.2d 675 ]; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1,