California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Schmidt, H044222 (Cal. App. 2017):
" '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.] . . . 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.) A reviewing court "must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action 'might be considered sound trial strategy.' " (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 689.) " ' " 'Reviewing courts will reverse convictions [on direct appeal] on the ground of inadequate counsel only if the record on
Page 16
appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for [his or her] act or omission.' " [Citation.]' " (People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 876, superseded by statute on another point as recognized in People v. Robertson (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 965, 981.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.