ineffectiveness of counsel claim in California

2014(People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 11 15 Cal.4th 264 , 266 . . . .)” (People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 (Carter).) These standards apply with particular force at closing argument because, as we have recognized, “ ‘[t]he decision of how to argue to the jury after the presentation of evidence is inherently tactical . . . .’ [Citation.]” (People v. Gamage (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 391 (Gamage).) “[T]he inquiry into an ineffectiveness of counsel claim involves two prongs. . . . ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 687, 694.) . . . ‘there is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assis

2013Under Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , 692- 693] in order to prevail on an ineffectiveness of counsel claim, a defendant must show, first, that the counsel’s performance was “deficient.” (Id. at p. 687 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at 7 p. 693].) Such deficiency is established by proving that the representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

1987Where, as here, "the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged," and there are plausible strategic reasons for his action, the ineffectiveness of counsel claim must fail on appeal. ( People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 426 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R. 4th 1 ].) In any event, it is not reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a more favorable verdict had it not heard this tape recording. ( People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 584 .) 3.

1987Where, as here, "the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged," and there are plausible strategic reasons for his action, the ineffectiveness of counsel claim must fail on appeal. ( People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 426 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R. 4th 1 ].) In any event, it is not reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a more favorable verdict had it not heard this tape recording. ( People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 584 .) 3.

1987(People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 .) [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1 ]; People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 584 [ 189 Cal.Rptr. 855 , 659 P.2d 1144 ].) The trial court gave respondent a new trial on the theory that Attorney Redmond had relied on Mr. Nakanishi in the presentation of a “joint” defense.

1987Where, as here, "the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged," and there are plausible strategic reasons for his action, the ineffectiveness of counsel claim must fail on appeal. ( People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 426 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R. 4th 1 ].) In any event, it is not reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a more favorable verdict had it not heard this tape recording. ( People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 584 .) 3.

2014(People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 11 15 Cal.4th 264 , 266 . . . .)” (People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 (Carter).) These standards apply with particular force at closing argument because, as we have recognized, “ ‘[t]he decision of how to argue to the jury after the presentation of evidence is inherently tactical . . . .’ [Citation.]” (People v. Gamage (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 391 (Gamage).) “[T]he inquiry into an ineffectiveness of counsel claim involves two prongs. . . . ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 687, 694.) . . . ‘there is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assis

2014If 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.’ (Id. at p. 697.)” (Scaffidi, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 151, fn. 2 .) b.

2014(People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 11 15 Cal.4th 264 , 266 . . . .)” (People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211 (Carter).) These standards apply with particular force at closing argument because, as we have recognized, “ ‘[t]he decision of how to argue to the jury after the presentation of evidence is inherently tactical . . . .’ [Citation.]” (People v. Gamage (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 391 (Gamage).) “[T]he inquiry into an ineffectiveness of counsel claim involves two prongs. . . . ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 687, 694.) . . . ‘there is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assis

2008Appellant relies on People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 282 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 786 P.2d 892 ], in arguing that this court should nonetheless consider the forfeited claim on the merits in order "to forestall an ineffectiveness of counsel contention." However, nothing in Lewis suggests that our Supreme Court intended to establish a rule by which all forfeited claims must be considered on the merits where an ineffectiveness of counsel claim is the likely alternative.

2008Appellant relies on People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 282 [ 266 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 786 P.2d 892 ], in arguing that this court should nonetheless consider the forfeited claim on the merits in order "to forestall an ineffectiveness of counsel contention." However, nothing in Lewis suggests that our Supreme Court intended to establish a rule by which all forfeited claims must be considered on the merits where an ineffectiveness of counsel claim is the likely alternative.

1993Briefly stated, in order to establish such a claim, “a defendant must show that counsel (1) performed at a level below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms; and thereby (2) subjected the defense to prejudice, i.e., in the absence of counsel’s failings a more favorable outcome was reasonably probable.” (People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 377 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 753 P.2d 1109 ]; see also In re Sixto, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 1257 [to establish ineffectiveness of counsel under state Constitution, defendant must prove counsel failed to make particular in

1993Briefly stated, in order to establish such a claim, “a defendant must show that counsel (1) performed at a level below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms; and thereby (2) subjected the defense to prejudice, i.e., in the absence of counsel’s failings a more favorable outcome was reasonably probable.” (People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 377 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 753 P.2d 1109 ]; see also In re Sixto, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 1257 [to establish ineffectiveness of counsel under state Constitution, defendant must prove counsel failed to make particular in

1993Briefly stated, in order to establish such a claim, “a defendant must show that counsel (1) performed at a level below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms; and thereby (2) subjected the defense to prejudice, i.e., in the absence of counsel’s failings a more favorable outcome was reasonably probable.” (People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 377 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 753 P.2d 1109 ]; see also In re Sixto, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 1257 [to establish ineffectiveness of counsel under state Constitution, defendant must prove counsel failed to make particular in

1987(People v. Montgomery (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 718, 728-729 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 558 ].) In proving an ineffectiveness of counsel claim, the defendant must show that counsel’s acts or omissions resulted in the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious defense or that it is reasonably probable a decision more favorable to the defendant would have resulted in the absence of counsel’s failings.

1987(People v. Montgomery (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 718, 728-729 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 558 ].) In proving an ineffectiveness of counsel claim, the defendant must show that counsel’s acts or omissions resulted in the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious defense or that it is reasonably probable a decision more favorable to the defendant would have resulted in the absence of counsel’s failings.