In a motion brought by J.R, who identified appellant at the scene of the crime, is ineffective counsel?

In any event, even if appellant's statements had been excluded, there is no reasonable probability that there would have been a different result. (People v. Hernandez, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 1052, 1053 [to establish ineffective assistance of counsel "'a defendant must establish that, absent counsel's error, it is reasonably probable that the verdict would have been more favorable to him'"].) As discussed in Part I., ante, the juvenile court could have sustained the petition on the basis of J.R.'s identification of appellant at the scene of the crime. Thus, we find no ineffective assistance of counsel.

The judgment is affirmed.