What is the standard for successful claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings?

The familiar standard for review of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is that the defendant must show (1) trial counsel failed to act in a manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys, and (2) a more favorable result would have been obtained absent counsel's failings. (People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 288.)

A defendant whose counsel did not object at trial to alleged prosecutorial misconduct can argue on appeal that counsel's inaction violated the defendant's constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. Failure to object, however, rarely constitutes constitutionally ineffective legal representation. (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 424.) The decision whether to object is inherently tactical, and the failure to object rarely will establish ineffective assistance. (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 502.)