California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Mitchell, B283550 (Cal. App. 2019):
" 'To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's failings, the result would have been more favorable to the defendant.' [Citation.]" (People v. Johnson (2015) 60 Cal.4th 966, 979-980.) On appeal, we " '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.] [The d]efendant's burden is difficult to carry on direct appeal, as [the courts] have observed: " 'Reviewing courts will reverse convictions [on direct appeal] on the ground of inadequate counsel only if the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose for [his or her] act or omission.' " [Citation.]' [Citation.] If the record on appeal ' " 'sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged[,] . . . unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation,' the claim on appeal must be rejected," ' and the 'claim of ineffective assistance
Page 20
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.