California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Wilder, BE041937 (Cal. App. 10/16/2007), BE041937, E043261 (Cal. App. 2007):
"In assessing claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, we consider whether counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and whether the defendant suffered prejudice to a reasonable probability, that is, a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. [Citations.]" (People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1211.)
Defendant's trial counsel signed a declaration attesting that his failure to object at the sentencing hearing was not due to strategic reasons. Accordingly, we conclude defendant's trial counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. If trial counsel had objected to the court's reliance on events occurring after February 2006, when defendant's probation was most recently reinstated, then the court would almost certainly have sustained the objection in accordance with the law and only considered events occurring prior to February 2006. (See People v. Harris (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 141, 145 [facts "preceding a reinstatement of probation" may be considered].)
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.