What is the test to prove constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel?

To demonstrate constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must prove that counsel's performance was unreasonable when measured by prevailing professional norms and that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's acts or omissions, the result of the proceeding would have been more favorable to the defense. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688.) A defendant is not entitled to relief on direct appeal if the record does not show why counsel failed to act in the manner

Page 21

defendant challenges, unless there is no satisfactory explanation for counsel's conduct or counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one. (See People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266.) Furthermore, a reviewing court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice prong of the test. "If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed. Courts should strive to ensure that ineffectiveness claims not become so burdensome to defense counsel that the entire criminal justice system suffers as a result." (Strickland v. Washington, supra, at p. 697.)