What is the standard of care for defense attorneys at sentencing?

People v. Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th 331, describes the standard of care for defense attorneys at sentencing: "Under existing law, a defense attorney who fails to adequately understand the available sentencing alternatives, promote their proper application, or pursue the most advantageous disposition for his client may be found incompetent. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 351.)

We can think of no reason, strategic or otherwise, for trial counsel's failure to object to the court's probation ineligibility statement, or for counsel's failure to argue that this was an "unusual case" and advocate for probation conditioned on defendant's enrollment in a drug rehabilitation program, particularly in light of defendant's known substance abuse problems and the trial court's remarks about defendant's likeability and capacity to make a legitimate living if he got clean of methamphetamine. (See People v. Cotton (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1086 ["counsel failed to render effective assistance by failing to assist appellant in gaining admittance into a drug rehabilitation program, and not contacting the probation department to urge it to recommend reinstating probation pursuant to appellant's enrollment in a drug rehabilitation program"].)