Does a defense counsel fail to introduce into evidence six letters of commendation from his prison employers?

Defendant asserts that defense counsel failed to introduce into evidence six letters of commendation from his prison employers. When defense counsel

[108 Cal.Rptr.2d 375]

inquired of a parole officer familiar with defendant's records memorializing his conduct in prison, the parole officer testified concerning the laudatory reports contained in defendant's records. Although the trial court denied defense counsel's request that every one of these letters be admitted, several of the letters of commendation were included within another exhibit. Accordingly, defendant has not demonstrated deficient performance in representation below an objective standard of reasonableness, nor has prejudice been established. (People v. Lucero, supra, 23 Cal.4th 692, 728, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 871, 3 P.3d 248.)

[108 Cal.Rptr.2d 375]

Defendant asserts that defense counsel were ineffective both because they selected witnesses to testify on defendant's behalf (defendant's mother, a family friend, and a representative from the temporary employment agency) who did not effectively present evidence in mitigation, and because counsel did not offer documentation in support of their testimony. These witnesses, especially defendant's mother, offered considerable testimony describing circumstances in mitigation. The circumstance that these witnesses were impeached in some respects with other evidence does not suggest defense counsel were ineffective in offering their testimony or in preparing them to testify. These witnesses may have been the best available to the defense. We cannot conclude there was deficient performance, much less prejudice, upon the record before us. (People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th 622, 735, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640.)