California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Harvey, F052742 (Cal. App. 10/3/2008), F052742 (Cal. App. 2008):
"The standard for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel is well settled. A defendant must demonstrate that: (1) his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been more favorable to the defendant. [Citation.] A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. [Citation.] `"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"'" (People v. Stanley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 913, 954.)
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.