benchmark for judging any claim in California

2016Legal principles governing ineffective assistance of counsel The right to counsel guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution “‘includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel. . . .’” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 732 .) “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 66

2016The proof . . . must be a demonstrable reality and not a speculative matter.' " (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 656 .) As to prejudice, "the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent [counsel's] errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt." (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 695 .) "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 215 .) "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the pr

2016(Powell v. Alabama (1932) 287 U.S. 45, 68 ; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215 (Ledesma).) The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness is whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.

2015(Powell v. Alabama (1932) 287 U.S. 45, 68 ; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215 (Ledesma).) The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness is whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.

2014When a defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, he must establish that his ‘“counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors and/or omissions, the trial would have resulted in a more favorable outcome.’” (In re Cudjo (1999) 20 Cal.4th 673, 687 ; accord, People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171 , 217–218.) ““‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functionin

2014When a defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, he must establish that his ‘“counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors and/or omissions, the trial would have resulted in a more favorable outcome.’” (In re Cudjo (1999) 20 Cal.4th 673, 687 ; accord, People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171 , 217–218.) ““‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functionin

2016Legal principles governing ineffective assistance of counsel The right to counsel guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution “‘includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel. . . .’” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 732 .) “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 66

2014(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 , 686–696; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215 .)“ ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” (In re Valdez (2010) 49 Cal.4th 715, 729 .) A finding of ineffective assistance of counsel is warranted only if the defendant establishes: (1) performance by counsel deficient under the objective standards of reasonable attorney performance; and (2) prejudice.

2021If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “‘[A] defendant need not show that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case.’ [Citation.] ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’ [Citation.] Therefore, all [a defendant] must show “is t

2016Legal principles governing ineffective assistance of counsel The right to counsel guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution “‘includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel. . . .’” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 732 .) “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 66

2016Legal principles governing ineffective assistance of counsel The right to counsel guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution “‘includes, and indeed presumes, the right to effective counsel. . . .’” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 732 .) “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 66

2016The proof . . . 6 must be a demonstrable reality and not a speculative matter.’” (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 656 ; accord, People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 875 .) “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.

2016(Id. at p. 687.) These are “[1] whether counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and [2] whether the defendant suffered prejudice to a reasonable probability, that is, a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 (Carter); Strickland, supra, at p. 687 .) We may dispose of an ineffectiveness claim if defendant fails to demonstrate prejudice without determining whether her trial counsel’s performance was deficient. ( Strickland, supra, at p. 697 .) Our review

2010(Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 687 ; Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 216 .) In reviewing counsel’s performance, we “exercise deferential scrutiny.” (Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 216 ; accord, Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 691 .) To that end, it is up to King to show his counsel’s performance was deficient because his “ ‘representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness . . . under prevailing professional norms.’ ” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525 , 907 P.2d 373 ].) Second, even after a party demonstrates ineffective assistance, he must

2010(Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 687 ; Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 216 .) In reviewing counsel’s performance, we “exercise deferential scrutiny.” (Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 216 ; accord, Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 691 .) To that end, it is up to King to show his counsel’s performance was deficient because his “ ‘representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness . . . under prevailing professional norms.’ ” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525 , 907 P.2d 373 ].) Second, even after a party demonstrates ineffective assistance, he must

2010As stated in Strickland , “a defendant need not show that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case.” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 693 .) “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” (Id. at p. 686.) Therefore, all Jones must show is “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

2010As stated in Strickland , "a defendant need not show that counsel's deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case." ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 693 .) "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." ( Id. at p. 686.) Therefore, all Jones must show is "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been differen