California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hart, E059298 (Cal. App. 2014):
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show that (1) his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms; and (2) counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial, i.e., a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel's performance, the result would have been more favorable to the defendant. (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 687-688.)
As discussed above, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to vacate his conviction under section 1016.5, so any further arguments or evidence on that ground by defense counsel would have been properly rejected by the trial court, and it is not ineffective assistance for counsel to refrain from raising meritless arguments. Moreover, as we have denied defendant's claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to vacate, we necessarily conclude that counsel's alleged "deficient performance" caused no prejudice and cannot support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. (See People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 623-624, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683.)
The order denying defendant's motion to vacate the judgment under section 1016.5 is affirmed.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.