How has the court treated the testimony of a defendant who said he insisted upon testifying at trial?

The trial court's determination concerning defendant's credibility is entitled to deference if supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 582.) In this case, the trial court did not believe defendant was credible when he said he insisted upon testifying. This determination is supported by the facts that (1) there were many opportunities for defendant to raise the testimony issue during trial, and (2) he appeared adept at raising concerns about his various attorneys. Thus, it can reasonably be inferred that it is unlikely defendant would have simply sat quietly while his trial counsel refused to assist him if he elected to testify. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that defendant's testimony was not credible as it concerned his conversations with his trial counsel.

Given the state of the record, we cannot conclude that defendant insisted upon exercising his right to testify during trial. (See People v. Carter, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1199.) As a result, we must conclude defendant's trial counsel was not ineffective in this regard.