ineffective assistance of counsel claim in California

2026Ineffective Assistance of Counsel “ ‘A defendant whose counsel did not object at trial to alleged prosecutorial misconduct can argue on appeal that counsel’s inaction violated the defendant’s constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.’ ” (People v. Aguirre, supra, 18 Cal.5th at p. 706.) On such claims, “[t]he appellate record . . . rarely shows that the failure to object was the result of counsel’s incompetence; generally, such claims are more appropriately litigated on habeas corpus, which allows for an evidentiary hearing where the reasons for defense counsel’s actions or o

2026(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 .) If the record on direct appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act, a reviewing court must reject an ineffective assistance of counsel claim unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or there simply could be no satisfactory explanation.

2026JUDGE CLAPP ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN GRANTING BRILES A NEW TRIAL BASED ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL “A criminal defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights to counsel [citations] include the right to effective legal assistance.” (People v. 13 Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009 .) A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate “both that trial counsel failed to act in a manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys acting as diligent advocates, and that it is reasonably probable a more favorable determination would have resulted in the absence of

2025Second, the defendant must show resulting prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.” (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009 (Mai).) An ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on either one of these components.

2026(People v. Silvey (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1320, 1329 ; Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 690–691; People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936 .) Where the record is silent as to counsel’s reason, the court must reject an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “unless counsel was asked for and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, or there simply can be no satisfactory explanation.” (People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188, 1212 .) An assertion that counsel was ineffective on a silent record is more appropriately made in a petition for habeas corpus, which promotes judicial economy.12 (Pe

2024All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding.” (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009 ; accord People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 , 266–267 [habeas corpus is the more appropriate procedure to address an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because it may include evidence of an attorney’s reasons for making the complained-of decision, which is outside the appellate record].) Defense counsel was not asked why he did not raise section 1170(b)(6)(A) at sentencing, and a possible explanation for his omission is he reasona

2024(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 ; People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 569 .) In evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we “ ‘ “presume that “counsel’s performance fell within the wide range of professional competence and that counsel’s actions and inactions can be explained as a matter of sound trial strategy.” ’ ” (People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 125 .) Reversal is appropriate “only if there is affirmative evidence that counsel had ‘ “ ‘no rational tactical purpose’ ” ’ for an action or omission.” (People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181 , 198.) Here

2023“To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must show that (1) ‘counsel’s performance fell below a standard of reasonable competence’ and (2) ‘prejudice resulted.’ (People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543 , 569 . . . ; see Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 , 687-688 . . . .) Thus, ‘[e]ven where deficient performance appears, the conviction must be upheld unless the defendant demonstrates prejudice, i.e., that, “ ‘ “but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

2024(People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436 .) Our Supreme Court makes it clear that we need not analyze whether defense counsel’s performance was deficient if it is easier to dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on a lack of prejudice.

2024“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim has two elements: a defendant must show that their counsel’s performance was deficient, and that this deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” (In re Tellez (2024) 17 Cal.5th 77 , 88; see People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 615 ; People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 386 .) When considering whether trial counsel failed to act as a reasonably competent attorney, “a reviewing court defers to counsel’s reasonable tactical decisions, and there is a presumption counsel acted within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” (People v.

2026Because “trial judges are particularly well suited to observe courtroom performance and to rule on the adequacy of counsel in criminal cases tried before them,” “in appropriate circumstances justice will be expedited by avoiding appellate review, or habeas corpus proceedings, in favor of presenting the issue of counsel’s effectiveness to the trial court as the basis of a motion for new trial.” (People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 582 .) However, a trial court is well within its discretion in declining to consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a motion for new trial if the

2015(Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 421 .) As is well known, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires a reviewing court to address a deficient performance prong and a prejudicial outcome prong.

2014(People v. Jones (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1115, 1134 .) An ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires a showing that “counsel’s action was, objectively considered, both deficient under prevailing professional norms and prejudicial.” (People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 666 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) “[T]he burden is on the defendant to show (1) trial counsel failed to act in the manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys acting as diligent advocates and (2) it is reasonably probable that a more favorable determination would have res

2014(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 877-879 ; People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 778 .) Our Supreme Court discussed the requirements of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in People v. Fairbank, supra, 16 Cal.4th at page 1241 : “[W]hen considering a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, ‘a court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. . . .

2026Defense Counsel Did Not Provide Ineffective Assistance for Failing To Request a Pretrial Lineup To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendant must establish both deficient performance and prejudice, that is, “a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746 ; see id. at pp. 745–746.) Tactical errors are generally not deemed reversible, and counsel’s decisions are evaluated in the context of the record.

2026Defense Counsel Did Not Provide Ineffective Assistance for Failing To Request a Pretrial Lineup To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendant must establish both deficient performance and prejudice, that is, “a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746 ; see id. at pp. 745–746.) Tactical errors are generally not deemed reversible, and counsel’s decisions are evaluated in the context of the record.

2026This standard provides that: “[t]o secure reversal … upon the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel under either the state or federal Constitution, [an appellant] must establish (1) that ... counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, i.e., that counsel’s performance did not meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that [appellant] would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel’s shortcomings.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1003 .) “A reviewing court can beg

2026This standard provides that: “[t]o secure reversal … upon the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel under either the state or federal Constitution, [an appellant] must establish (1) that [] counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, i.e., that counsel’s performance did not meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that [appellant] would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel’s shortcomings. [Citations.]” (People v. 13 Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1003 , citing Stric

2015At oral argument, defendant’s counsel also asserted that if we agree that defendant received prejudicially ineffective assistance of counsel, we must reverse with instructions that count 2 be dismissed because principles of double jeopardy apply to bar a retrial of that charge. 20 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires a showing that “counsel’s action was, objectively considered, both deficient under prevailing professional norms and prejudicial.” (People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 666 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) “[T]he burden is

2015A brandishing instruction is based on the premise that she did the opposite. “‘[W]e accord great deference to counsel’s tactical decisions’ [citation], and we have explained that ‘courts should not second-guess reasonable, if difficult, tactical decisions in the harsh light of hindsight’ [citation]. ‘Tactical errors are generally not deemed reversible, and counsel’s decisionmaking must be evaluated in the context of the available facts.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Weaver, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 925-926.) Because we have no record of trial counsel’s reasons for not requesting the instruction, an

2024(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 691-692 ; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-217 .) In considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in defendant’s post- verdict motion for a new trial, the trial court concluded that a review of R.’s testimony in the dependency proceeding did “not reveal any material inconsistencies such that [defense counsel] should have used the transcript [from] the dependency hearing to impeach [R.] at trial.” The court stated: “The best support Defendant has for his necessary foundational fact is that [R.] testified [in the dependency proc

2023(Strickland [v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 691-692 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ]]; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-217 .) To establish prejudice, a defendant must 8 show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counsel’s performance not been deficient. ( Strickland, supra, at pp. 693-694 ; Ledesma, supra, at pp. 217-218 .) ‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ( Strickland, supra, at p. 694 .) [¶] There is no need to address the issue of whether counsel’s performance was deficient when w

2025(People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 , overruled on another ground in People v. Delgado (2017) 2 Cal.5th 544 .) To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendant must establish both deficient performance and prejudice, “that is, a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the 10. proceeding would have been different.’ ” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641 , 745–746.) Tactical errors are generally not deemed reversible, and counsel’s decisions are evaluated in the context of the record.

2025According to appellant, had the instruction been given, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have determined that specific intent was not proven and thus found appellant not guilty of burglary.3 A. Applicable legal principles The standard for deciding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under either the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or article I, section 15 of the California Constitution, 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

2022(See Strickland, at p. 687; People v. Kirkpatrick (1994) 7 Cal.4th 988, 1008 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) A “mere failure to object to evidence or argument seldom establishes counsel’s incompetence.” (People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 772 ; see also People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746 .) Further, “[i]f the challenged comments, viewed in context, ‘would have been taken by a juror to state or imply nothing harmful, [then] they obviously cannot be deemed objectionable.’ ” (People v. Cortez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 101, 130 .) “Fai

2022(See Strickland, at p. 687; People v. Kirkpatrick (1994) 7 Cal.4th 988, 1008 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) A “mere failure to object to evidence or argument seldom establishes counsel’s incompetence.” (People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 772 .) “Unless a defendant establishes the contrary, we shall presume that ‘counsel’s performance fell within the wide range of professional competence and that counsel’s actions and inactions can be explained as a matter of sound trial strategy.’ ” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746 .) F

2026(See Hoyt, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 958 [an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires the defendant to show resulting prejudice].) The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion for a new trial on this ground. c.

2026(See People v. Hoyt, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 939 ; People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 206 ; People v. Stanley, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 793 ; People v. Hardy, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 150 ; People v. Lewis, supra, 111 Cal.App.5th at p. 1098; People v. Benson, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 1078, fn. 2; People v. Ramirez, supra, 104 Cal.App.5th at pp. 329-330; People v. Weber, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 1055 ; People v. Clayburg, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 93 ; People v. Johnigan, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1098 ; People v. Roberto V., supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1364, fn. 6 ; People v

2026(Ibid.) To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “the petitioner must carry his burden of proving prejudice as a ‘demonstrable reality,’ not simply speculation as to the effect of the errors or omissions of counsel.” (People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 937 , quoting People v. Stephenson (1974) 10 Cal.3d 652, 661 .) We agreed with the Attorney General that defendant could not show prejudice attributable to the asserted ineffectiveness of counsel.

2025(Ibid.) To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “the petitioner must carry his burden of proving prejudice as a ‘demonstrable reality,’ not simply speculation as to the effect of the errors or omissions of counsel.” (People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 937 , quoting People v. Stephenson (1974) 10 Cal.3d 652, 661 .) We agree with the Attorney General that defendant cannot show prejudice attributable to the asserted ineffectiveness of counsel.

2026(People v. Silvey (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1320, 1329 ; Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 690–691; People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936 .) Where the record is silent as to counsel’s motivation, the court must reject an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “unless counsel was asked for and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, or there simply can be no satisfactory explanation.” (People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188, 1212 .) Meeks asserts Recksiek’s testimony exceeded the permissible scope of expert testimony, and that there could be no tactical reason for his counsel’s failure

2026(People v. Silvey (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1320, 1329 ; Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 690–691; People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936 .) Where the record is silent as to counsel’s reason, the court must reject an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “unless counsel was asked for and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, or there simply can be no satisfactory explanation.” (People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188, 1212 .) An assertion that counsel was ineffective on a silent record is more appropriately made in a petition for habeas corpus, which promotes judicial economy.12 (Pe

2025(Strickland, at p. 687.) “It is defendant’s burden to demonstrate the inadequacy of trial counsel.” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436 (Lucas).) 12 In reviewing such claims, we give significant deference to trial counsel’s reasonable tactical decisions, and the “ ‘strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.’ ” (Lucas, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 437 , quoting Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 689 .) “ ‘Surmounting Strickland’s high bar is never an easy task.’ ” (Harrington v. Richter (2011) 562 U.S. 86, 105 .) And it is “par

2021(In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 .) To establish prejudice, “[i]t is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.’ ” (Richter, supra, 562 U.S. at p. 104 .) To show prejudice, defendant must show a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable result had counsel’s performance not been deficient. ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 693-694; Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 217-218.) The standard for Watson prejudice is essentially the same as the Strickland standard for prejudice.

2020The defendant can be expected to rely on counsel’s independent evaluation of the charges, applicable law, and evidence, and of the risks and probable outcome of trial.” (In re Alvernaz, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 933 .) “[D]efense counsel must communicate accurately to a defendant the terms of any offer made by the prosecution, and inform the defendant of the consequences of rejecting it, including the maximum and minimum sentences which may be imposed in the event of a conviction.” (Id. at p. 937.) The Attorney General does not argue Montanez received effective assistance of counsel; the Attorney

2016(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 .) “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must prove two elements: (1) trial counsel’s deficient performance and (2) prejudice as a result of that performance.” (People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1169, 1189 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) Deficient performance is established “if the record demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing norms of practice.” (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 937 .) Preju

2021(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 690, 694 ; see People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 703 .) If the record fails to disclose why trial counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, the ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be rejected unless counsel was asked for, and failed to provide, an explanation or there could be no plausible explanation.

2021(People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 703 ; People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1126 .) Where we can dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the grounds of prejudice, we need not address whether counsel’s performance was deficient.

2022In considering a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it is not necessary to determine “‘whether counsel’s performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. … If 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.’” (In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 , quoting Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697 ; In re Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 974, 1019 [same].) To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel

2015(See generally In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1079 [there is no need to address the issue of whether counsel’s performance was deficient when we can dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the grounds of lack of prejudice].) Nevertheless, the sentence imposed pursuant to section 12022.7, subdivision (a), must be stayed.

2026(See, e.g., People v. Young (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 451, 463 ; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [an appellate court has the authority to reach a forfeited claim].) To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Santiago must establish both deficient performance and prejudice, that is, “a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746 ; see id. at pp. 745–746.) Tactical errors are generally not deemed reversible, and counsel’s decisions ar

2025(See People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161-162, fn. 6 [“An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party. [Citations.] 6 Indeed, it has the authority to do so”]; accord, People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393 , 400.) Moreover, by addressing this issue and in the interest of judicial economy, we forestall an ineffective assistance of counsel claim by Singleton.

2025(People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1189 [a defendant has the burden to establish constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel and if the record on direct appeal does not reveal why counsel did not object, a reviewing court must reject an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “‘unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or there simply could be no satisfactory explanation’”].) Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that there was evidentiary error or ineffective assistance of counsel on this point, there is still no prejudice to defendant on this record.

2025Defendant thus bears the burden of establishing constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel.’” (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1189 .) A reviewing court will therefore reject an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “‘unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or there simply could be no satisfactory explanation.’” (Ibid.) The record does not disclose why defendant’s attorney did not request CALJIC Nos. 2.91 and 2.92, so the question becomes whether there could be no satisfactory explanation for not 3 Our conclusion disposes of defendant’s related