What are the consequences of ineffective counsel in a criminal case?

We find People v. Hussain (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 261, on which defendant relies, to be distinguishable with regard to prejudice. There, the court concluded defense counsel was ineffective in failing to request that the jury be instructed on claim of right and found the deficient performance to be prejudicial because "[t]he jury struggled with the element of intent . . . , asking specifically how specific intent related to the elements of grand theft" and because it acquitted defendant on every other charge, indicating they "did not reject defendant's testimony entirely." (Id. at pp. 271-272.) By contrast, here, there is no reason to believe the jury had difficulty understanding the intent requirement or credited any of defendant's testimony.

3. Failure to Object to Alleged Instances of Prosecutorial Misconduct