essence of an ineffective-assistance claim in California

2015(People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421 .) “The right to counsel is a fundamental right of criminal defendants; it assures the fairness, and thus the legitimacy, of our adversary process. [Citation.] The essence of an ineffective-assistance claim is that counsel’s unprofessional errors so upset the adversarial balance between defense and prosecution that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect. [Citations.]” (Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986) 477 U.S. 365, 374-375 .) “Defendant has the burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel. [Citation.] To prevail on a claim

2015(People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421 .) “The right to counsel is a fundamental right of criminal defendants; it assures the fairness, and thus the legitimacy, of our adversary process. [Citation.] The essence of an ineffective-assistance claim is that counsel’s unprofessional errors so upset the adversarial balance between defense and prosecution that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect. [Citations.]” (Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986) 477 U.S. 365, 374-375 .) “Defendant has the burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel. [Citation.] To prevail on a claim

2018ALLEGED MIRANDA VIOLATION A. Ineffective Assistance-Applicable Law "The essence of an ineffective-assistance claim is that counsel's unprofessional errors so upset the adversarial balance between defense and prosecution that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect." ( Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986) 477 U.S. 365 , 374, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 ( Kimmelman ).) To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel the defendant must prove both counsel's representation was objectively deficient-below a reasonable standard of care under prevailing professional norms-

2018ALLEGED MIRANDA VIOLATION A. Ineffective Assistance-Applicable Law "The essence of an ineffective-assistance claim is that counsel's unprofessional errors so upset the adversarial balance between defense and prosecution that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect." ( Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986) 477 U.S. 365 , 374, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 ( Kimmelman ).) To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel the defendant must prove both counsel's representation was objectively deficient-below a reasonable standard of care under prevailing professional norms-

2015A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 389 .) 19 As a general rule, appellate courts give “great deference” to trial counsel’s difficult tactical decisions.

2015A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 389 .) Defendant bases his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on statements the trial judge made to defense counsel during the trial: “[Defense counsel], you’re 10 leaving the court with the impression that you’re not thinking about the objections you’re making as opposed to pursuing a particular strategy.

2018All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding." ( People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986 , 1009, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 305 P.3d 1175 .) Where a claim of ineffective assistance is premised on a failure to seek suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, the defendant must demonstrate the suppression motion was meritorious and there is a reasonable probability the verdict would have been different had defendant prevailed on the motion. ( Kimmelman , supra , 477 U.S. at p. 375 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 .) "In determining prejudic

2018All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding." ( People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986 , 1009, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 305 P.3d 1175 .) Where a claim of ineffective assistance is premised on a failure to seek suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, the defendant must demonstrate the suppression motion was meritorious and there is a reasonable probability the verdict would have been different had defendant prevailed on the motion. ( Kimmelman , supra , 477 U.S. at p. 375 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 .) "In determining prejudic

2018All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding." ( People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986 , 1009, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 305 P.3d 1175 .) Where a claim of ineffective assistance is premised on a failure to seek suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, the defendant must demonstrate the suppression motion was meritorious and there is a reasonable probability the verdict would have been different had defendant prevailed on the motion. ( Kimmelman , supra , 477 U.S. at p. 375 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 .) "In determining prejudic

2018All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding." ( People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986 , 1009, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 305 P.3d 1175 .) Where a claim of ineffective assistance is premised on a failure to seek suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, the defendant must demonstrate the suppression motion was meritorious and there is a reasonable probability the verdict would have been different had defendant prevailed on the motion. ( Kimmelman , supra , 477 U.S. at p. 375 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 .) "In determining prejudic

2018All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding." ( People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986 , 1009, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 305 P.3d 1175 .) Where a claim of ineffective assistance is premised on a failure to seek suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, the defendant must demonstrate the suppression motion was meritorious and there is a reasonable probability the verdict would have been different had defendant prevailed on the motion. ( Kimmelman , supra , 477 U.S. at p. 375 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 .) "In determining prejudic

2018All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding." ( People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986 , 1009, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 305 P.3d 1175 .) Where a claim of ineffective assistance is premised on a failure to seek suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, the defendant must demonstrate the suppression motion was meritorious and there is a reasonable probability the verdict would have been different had defendant prevailed on the motion. ( Kimmelman , supra , 477 U.S. at p. 375 , 106 S.Ct. 2574 .) "In determining prejudic

2018ALLEGED MIRANDA VIOLATION A. Ineffective Assistance-Applicable Law "The essence of an ineffective-assistance claim is that counsel's unprofessional errors so upset the adversarial balance between defense and prosecution that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect." ( Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986) 477 U.S. 365 , 374, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 ( Kimmelman ).) To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel the defendant must prove both counsel's representation was objectively deficient-below a reasonable standard of care under prevailing professional norms-

2018ALLEGED MIRANDA VIOLATION A. Ineffective Assistance-Applicable Law "The essence of an ineffective-assistance claim is that counsel's unprofessional errors so upset the adversarial balance between defense and prosecution that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect." ( Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986) 477 U.S. 365 , 374, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 ( Kimmelman ).) To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel the defendant must prove both counsel's representation was objectively deficient-below a reasonable standard of care under prevailing professional norms-

2013(People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421 .) “The right to counsel is a fundamental right of criminal defendants; it assures the fairness, and thus the legitimacy, of our adversary process. [Citation.] The essence of an ineffective-assistance claim is that counsel‟s unprofessional errors so upset the adversarial balance between defense and prosecution that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect. [Citations.]” (Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986) 477 U.S. 365, 374-375 .) “To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that (1) counsel‟s represe

2013(People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1335 .) When the appellate record does not contain the reasons for counsel‟s action, we will reverse the conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel “only when the record demonstrates there could have been no rational tactical purpose for counsel‟s challenged act or omission. [Citations.]” (People v. Mesa (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1007-1008 ; see People v. Torres (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 37, 48 [ineffective assistance of counsel claim considered when “there simply could be no satisfactory explanation for counsel not objecting to the profer

2013(People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421 .) “The right to counsel is a fundamental right of criminal defendants; it assures the fairness, and thus the legitimacy, of our adversary process. [Citation.] The essence of an ineffective-assistance claim is that counsel‟s unprofessional errors so upset the adversarial balance between defense and prosecution that the trial was rendered unfair and the verdict rendered suspect. [Citations.]” (Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986) 477 U.S. 365, 374-375 .) “To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that (1) counsel‟s represe

2013(People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1335 .) When the appellate record does not contain the reasons for counsel‟s action, we will reverse the conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel “only when the record demonstrates there could have been no rational tactical purpose for counsel‟s challenged act or omission. [Citations.]” (People v. Mesa (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1007-1008 ; see People v. Torres (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 37, 48 [ineffective assistance of counsel claim considered when “there simply could be no satisfactory explanation for counsel not objecting to the profer