Can a defense counsel argue that premeditation and deliberation is not sufficient to establish that mere intent to kill is equivalent to premeditating or deliberation?

would not have gathered, from the cited statements, that mere intent to kill was the equivalent of premeditation and deliberation. We " ' "do not lightly infer" that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor's statements.' [Citation.]' " (People v. Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 894.) Because the argument was not objectionable, defense counsels' performance was not objectively unreasonable. "Failure to raise a meritless objection is not ineffective assistance of counsel." (People v. Bradley (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 64, 90.)