When will a change in the law excuse counsel's failure to object at trial?

"In determining whether the significance of a change in the law excuses counsel's failure to object at trial, we consider the 'state of the law as it would have appeared to competent and knowledgeable counsel at the time of trial.' [Citation.]" (People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, 811, overruled on other grounds by Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270.) Section 1001.36 had been enacted four months prior to defendant's sentencing hearing. During that four-month period, the court held several hearings on defendant's motion to withdraw his plea. Defendant had the benefit of two attorneys who could have raised the issue and requested diversion under the newly enacted statute, with one attorney specifically appointed to determine whether there were grounds to file a motion to withdraw his plea. Nevertheless, neither attorney argued defendant should be allowed to withdraw his plea because section 1001.36 was enacted a month after he pleaded no contest, and the record does not contain evidence that defendant suffered from a diagnosed mental health disorder when he committed the charged offense in February 2017. The record indicates satisfactory reasons why both of defendant's attorneys did not rely on the newly enacted diversion statute during the four-month period when the court considered defendant's motion to withdraw his plea - because there was no evidence he was suffering from a mental health condition when he committed the instant offense.

"An appeal is 'limited to the four corners of the [underlying] record on appeal" (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 703, fn. 1), and defendant's ineffective

Page 14