California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gomez, D056959 (Cal. App. 2011):
counsel's failings, the result would have been more favorable to the defendant. [Citations.] 'When a defendant on appeal makes a claim that his counsel was ineffective, the appellate court must consider whether the record contains any explanation for the challenged aspects of representation provided by counsel. "If the record 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,' [citation], the contention must be rejected." ' [Citations.]" (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 845-846.) Since the failure of either prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim (defective representation or prejudice) is fatal to establishing the claim, we need not address both prongs if we conclude appellant cannot prevail on one of them. (People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 656, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 421, fn. 22, and superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Jones v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1210; Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 697.)
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.