California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Haff, C076319 (Cal. App. 2016):
Defendant recasts each of the issues discussed above as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. He bears the burden of proving counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient and that he suffered prejudice as a result of the incompetent representation. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 691-692 [80 L.Ed.2d 674].) Because we have rejected each and every one of his claims, defendant cannot show that defense counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient. He had no obligation to raise futile objections to jury instructions, and he could have had tactical reasons for foregoing objections to those that would have made no difference. Moreover, because all of the asserted errors on appeal are without merit, he suffered no prejudice from the defense his lawyer provided.
The judgment is affirmed.
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.