California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hannon, A148683 (Cal. App. 2018):
In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must first show counsel's performance was "deficient" because his "representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness . . . . [] . . . under prevailing professional norms." (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688.) 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
Page 6
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." (In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247, 1257.)
Normally, "the failure to object is a matter of trial tactics that an appellate court will seldom second-guess [citation] . . . ." (People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1209.) However, an exception exists where "there simply could be no satisfactory explanation" for counsel's failure to object. (Id. at p. 1211.)
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.