What is the test for ineffective assistance in a criminal case?

To demonstrate ineffective assistance, a defendant must show: (1) counsel's performance was unreasonable as measured by prevailing professional norms and (2) a reasonable probability of a more favorable result but for counsel's performance. (People v. Alvarado (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 178, 194.) Put differently, confidence in the outcome must be undermined. (Ibid.)

Page 6

Here, defendant cannot show a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome. (See People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 703 [" ' " 'a court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies' " ' "].) In considering consecutive terms, the trial court may consider whether (1) "[t]he crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; [] (2) [t]he crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; or [] (3) [t]he crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.425(a).) The court may consider other circumstances in aggravation or mitigation except those used to impose the upper term or enhance a sentence or that are elements of the crime. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.425(b).)