What is the test for ineffective assistance of counsel?

corpus proceeding, in which the attorney has the opportunity to explain the reasons for his or her conduct." (People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936.)

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is shown when the defendant establishes both of the following: (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, a determination more favorable to defendant would have resulted. (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 205-206; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 694.)

First, with respect to defense counsel's performance, "[t]he proper standard for judging attorney performance is that of reasonably effective assistance, considering all the circumstances. . . . Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential, and a fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. A court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 669.)

Here, the issue is whether "the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that counsel had no rational tactical purpose" for not objecting more frequently to the prosecutor's leading questions or for not objecting to the entire direct examination. (People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 581-582.)