California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Salinas, F074468 (Cal. App. 2018):
"In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance, a defendant must first show counsel's performance was deficient because the representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. [Citation.] Second, he must show prejudice flowing from counsel's performance or lack thereof. Prejudice is shown when there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. [Citation.]" (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 214-215.)
"[D]eciding whether to object is inherently tactical, and the failure to object will rarely establish ineffective assistance. [Citation.]" (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 502.) "An attorney may well have a reasonable tactical reason for declining to object, and ' "[i]f the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, an appellate claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be rejected unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or there simply could be no satisfactory explanation." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1312-1313.)
In addition, the failure to raise a meritless objection is not ineffective assistance of counsel. (People v. Bradley (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 64, 90.)
Page 13
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.