What is the burden of proving a criminal defendant's lawyer failed to deliver what the Constitution promises?

A criminal defendant asserting his or her lawyer failed to deliver what the Constitution promises bears the burden of proving the attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and that it is reasonably likely the result would have been different if the attorney's performance was up to par. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693].) "[I]f the record sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the challenged manner, we must reject the claim on appeal unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or there could be no satisfactory explanation for

Page 6

counsel's performance." (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1015.) We presume " '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. Defendant thus bears the burden of establishing constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel.' " (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1189.)