What are the elements of a trial attorney's ineffective assistance claim?

First, there was evidence supporting the instructions defense counsel did request and that were given in this case. Second, the record also reflects trial counsel did consider requesting CALCRIM No. 580, but eventually chose to withdraw that request. "To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's action was, objectively considered, both deficient under prevailing professional norms and prejudicial. [Citation.]" (People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 876.) The burden of establishing these elements is on the defendant. (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436.)

"`"Reviewing courts defer to counsel's reasonable tactical decisions in examining a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [citation], and there is a `strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.'" [Citation.] "[W]e accord great deference to counsel's tactical decisions" [citation], and we have explained that "courts should not second-guess reasonable, if difficult, tactical decisions in the harsh light of hindsight" [citation]. "Tactical errors are generally not deemed reversible, and counsel's decisionmaking must be evaluated in the context of the available facts." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Hinton, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 876.) This deference to tactical decisions applies where defense counsel declines to request the jury be instructed on a particular point of law. (People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 527.) Thus, the record fails to support any suggestion that defendant's trial attorney was incompetent in his choice of theories to be presented to the jury.