Is a defendant ineffective counsel for failing to raise an objection at the hearing?

Defendant also contends his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent was violated because he was forced to confess during the 115 hearing but was not given immunity from subsequent criminal prosecution. Defendant failed to raise this objection in the trial court. We will not consider defendant's claim for the first time on appeal. (People v. Combs (2004) 34 Cal.4th 821, 846.)

Anticipating his claim may be forfeited, defendant alternately argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the objection.

" 'In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant bears the burden of demonstrating, first, that counsel's performance was deficient because it "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness [] . . . under prevailing professional norms." [Citations.] Unless a defendant establishes the contrary, we shall presume that "counsel's performance fell within the wide range of professional competence and that counsel's actions and inactions can be explained as a matter of sound trial strategy." [Citation.] If the record "sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged," an appellate claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be rejected "unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation." [Citations.] If a defendant meets the burden of establishing that counsel's performance was deficient, he or she also must show that counsel's deficiencies resulted in prejudice, that is, a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Lopez (2008) 42 Cal.4th 960, 966.)