If appellant had valid grounds to criticize his trial attorney's actions with respect to the Miranda issue, would he have been able to argue that the trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective?

Moreover, even if appellant had valid grounds to criticize his trial attorney's actions with respect to the Miranda issue, we would still question whether appellant could, on this record, prove the counsel he received was constitutionally ineffective. As several courts have recognized, given the realities of criminal trials, there are potential claims in nearly all cases that in retrospect could (and perhaps should) have been raised. (See People v. Dunkle (2005) 36 Cal.4th 861, 916, overruled on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22.) Yet, "the omission of a claim, whether tactical or inadvertent, does not of itself demonstrate ineffectiveness unless it was objectively unreasonable, meaning that the omitted claim was one that any reasonably competent counsel would have brought." (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 465.) For the reasons already stated (including the lack of a factual basis for finding a Miranda violation), we conclude this high standard has not been met. (See also People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 292.)

Page 15