Does appellant make an ineffective assistance of counsel argument in his opening brief?

Although appellant makes no ineffective assistance of counsel argument in his opening brief, he does respond in his reply brief to respondent's observation that "a defendant who is barred from raising instructional error by the invited error doctrine may 'always claim he received ineffective assistance of counsel.' [Citation.]" (People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 658.) According to appellant, "[h]ad the jury been reinstructed on the quantum of force necessary to elevate a taking to a robbery, jurors would likely have declined to render a greater verdict." (See, e.g., People v. Morales (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 134, 139 ["it is established that something more is required than just that quantum of force which is necessary to accomplish the mere seizing of the property"].)

There is no showing of ineffective assistance of counsel in this case. First, while the robbery instruction, to which the court referred the jury after it asked the question about force, did not include the words, "quantum of force," which appellant now claims was required for the jury to understand the amount of force needed for the taking to rise to the level of robbery, the original instruction included similar language making the same point.⁷ (Cf. People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 97 [where

Page 29