How has the court treated a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion?

We review the denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 890.) As we have discussed ante, the omission of "successfully" from CALCRIM No. 1151 did not result in instructional error. Therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny defendant's motion on this ground.

In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove his counsel's performance was deficient, and that his defense was prejudiced as a result of this deficiency. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687.) As noted, defense counsel's failure to object to the modified instruction was not deficient.

In reviewing defense counsel's concessions, we "must in hindsight give great deference to counsel's tactical decisions." (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 703.) Further, "[r]ecognizing the importance of maintaining credibility before the jury, we have repeatedly rejected claims that counsel was ineffective in conceding various degrees of guilt." (People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 498.) Given the evidence in this case, counsel's tactical decision to concede the pimping and pandering charges in order to maintain credibility to argue the human trafficking charge was not deficient.

Page 16