What is the test for ineffective assistance of counsel?

Moreover, to the extent defendant's trial counsel could have raised an "asked and answered" objection, we conclude counsel may have had a tactical reason for not objecting. For example, defense counsel may not have wanted to draw more attention to the question by raising an objection. (See People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 172 [" '[d]eciding whether to object is inherently tactical' "].) Because it is possible that defendant's trial counsel had a reason for not objecting, we cannot conclude counsel rendered ineffective assistance. (People v. Gray, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 207 [ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be rejected unless there "simply could be no satisfactory explanation" for counsel's omission].)

We are not persuaded that defendant's trial counsel's performance fell below the standard of a reasonably competent attorney. (See People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 635 ["standard of reasonably competent representation"].) Accordingly, we will not address the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel issue.