What is the test for ineffective assistance of counsel?

To show ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must first prove that counsel's performance was unreasonable under prevailing professional standards and considering all the circumstances. (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 688.) The defendant "must identify the acts or omissions of counsel that are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment." (Id. at p. 690.) Once counsel actions have been established to be unreasonable, the defendant next must show that counsel's assistance was prejudicial. To show sufficient prejudice, "the defendant must show that 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." (Id. at p. 694.) Thus, prejudice is found where "there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the fact finder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt." (Id. at p. 695.)

On appeal, this court must decide whether, "in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance." (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 690.) In doing so, the court "should keep in mind that counsel's function is to make the adversarial testing process work in the particular case. At the same time, the court should recognize that counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment." (Id. at p. 690.)