What is the test for ineffective assistance of counsel?

Defendant alternatively argues his defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel to the extent an objection to the prosecutor's closing argument was required. The benchmark for evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance is "whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686.) A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must meet a two-pronged test: (1) defendant must show counsel's performance was deficient; and (2) defendant must show he was prejudiced by the deficient performance. (Id. at p. 687.)

Here, we need not decide whether counsel's performance was deficient because defendant either has not suffered prejudice or there was no misconduct as discussed below. (People v. Camino (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1377 [court need not address both components of ineffective assistance inquiry if defendant makes insufficient showing on one]; Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 691 ["An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment"].)

Page 9

C. The Prosecutor's Comments Were Either Harmless or Did Not Constitute Misconduct