What is the test for ineffective counsel in a motion for a new trial?

^33. "To prevail on a claim of deprivation of effective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that trial counsel's performance was deficient under a standard of reasonableness. [Citation.] He must also show that prejudice resulted. Although in certain contexts prejudice is presumed, generally, a 'defendant must show that there is a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome."' [Citation.]" (People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434, 450-451.) Because judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential, surmounting this "high bar is never an easy task. [Citations.]" (Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356, 371-372.)

A trial court is not always required to consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion for new trial. It should do so when justice will be expedited by such consideration. There are cases, however, in which habeas corpus is more suited to the circumstances. (People v. Cornwell (2005) 37 Cal.4th 50, 100-102, disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 421, fn. 22.)