Does the Attorney General have preserved all possible grounds for objections to the challenged evidence?

^6. The Attorney General also argues that although defendant objected to the evidence on the ground it was speculative, he did not object on the specific ground that it was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 352 or that its admission violated his constitutional rights, and thereby forfeited those contentions. In response, defendant argues that these objections were properly preserved, but that if they were forfeited, his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to raise them below. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show not only that his counsel's performance was deficient, but also that "counsel's deficient representation prejudiced the defendant, i.e., there is a 'reasonable probability' that, but for counsel's failings, defendant would have obtained a more favorable result. [Citations.]" (People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 540-541 (Dennis)) If defendant has not shown that counsel's actions were prejudicial, the reviewing court may reject the claim on that ground without deciding whether counsel's representation was deficient. (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 784.) We have already concluded both that the challenged evidence was admissible and that defendant did not suffer prejudice from its admission. Accordingly, whether or not defense counsel preserved for appeal all possible grounds for objections to the challenged evidence, our conclusion would be the same.