How have courts dealt with a motion for a new trial in a sexual assault case?

Finally, appellant contends that his new counsel rendered ineffective assistance in presenting his motion for a new trial. Specifically, appellant argues: "[Defense counsel], although having plainly filed a motion for a new trial based upon prior counsel's ineffective assistance, failed to cite appropriate case authority to support the motion, failed to distinguish the nature of the motion from what the prosecutor erroneously but successfully contended was a motion based upon newly discovered evidence, and failed to make meaningful offers of proof as to what evidence prior counsel had failed to introduce at trial." Appellant's ineffective assistance claim is unavailing. It is axiomatic that when the record on appeal fails to disclose why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, we must affirm the judgment unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 389.) Here, the record is silent with respect to counsel's challenged actions. "A claim of ineffective assistance in such a case is more appropriately decided in a habeas corpus proceeding." (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.)

Page 15

The judgment is affirmed.