What is the test for ineffective assistance of counsel?

Here, Mendoza's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based upon his initial trial counsel's failure to bring a motion to quash or traverse the search warrant. The substance of his claim is therefore a challenge to the validity of his plea and thus constitutes a certificate issue. Pursuant to section 1237.5, he was required to obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to raise the issue on appeal. Because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, his appeal is inoperative. The appropriate disposition is dismissal. (See People v. Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1099.)

There is a further reason why Mendoza's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not properly before us on this appeal. "A claim on appeal of ineffective assistance of counsel must be rejected ' "[if] the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged[,]... unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation." ' [Citations.] Unless the record affirmatively discloses that counsel had no tactical purpose for his act or omission, 'the conviction will be affirmed and the defendant relegated to habeas corpus proceedings at which evidence dehors the record may be taken to determine the basis, if any, for counsel's conduct or omission.' " (People v. Hinds (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 897, 901.)