What is the test for determining whether a defendant was prejudiced by the additional penalty imposed on him by the Court of Appeal?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hillard, E060101 (Cal. App. 2014):
We reject the People's assertion that defendant was not prejudiced by the additional penalty. The court's error is reversible despite defense counsel's failure to object because that failure constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show that counsel's performance "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," and that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694.) In this case, there is strong evidence that trial counsel, as well as the prosecutor, simply assumed either defendant had admitted the priors or that the trial court had made true findings on the prior 2007 robbery and 2011 receiving stolen property convictions. Counsel's failure to object at the time of sentencing therein fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
Page 10
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
