What is the test for ineffective assistance of counsel?

Finally, we turn to appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He asserts in a conclusory manner that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court's amendment of the information, the prosecutor's allegedly improper argument, and sandbagging tactics in her closing argument. However, as we concluded above, the court's amendment of the information was not error and there was no misconduct by the prosecutor. Thus, we also conclude on this record that appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object, because there was a tactical reason for not doing so. In short, there was no error. (See People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436443, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373; People v. Mesa (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1000, 10071008, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 875 [on direct appeal a conviction will be reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel only when the record demonstrates there could have been no rational tactical purpose for counsel's challenged act or omission].)

This was an emotionally-charged case involving two young girls and their volatile family. The closing argument (including rebuttal) was relatively short and focused, by necessity, primarily on the credibility of the victims vis- -vis that of appellant, the girls' fathers and other members of appellant's family. The prosecutor commented, but did not dwell, on objectionable material. Defense counsel reasonably could have concluded that she did not want to draw additional attention to those statements by objecting, having the court rule on the objections, striking them, and having the court give an admonition. Because this would have been a reasonable trial strategy, we cannot find defense counsel's performance deficient. Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as to prosecutorial misconduct lacks merit. (People v. Adanandus (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 496, 515516, 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 25.)

Appellant argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney declined to call an expert under People v. Stoll (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1136, 265 Cal.Rptr. 111, 783 P.2d 698 ( Stoll ).