When will a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance be rejected on appeal?

As we have indicated, as long as trial counsel could have had some satisfactory explanation for the conduct complained of, a claim of ineffective assistance must be rejected on direct appeal. (People v. Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 426.) On the record here, we conclude that defendant's trial attorney could have reasonably determined that requesting an instruction on voluntary intoxication would have been fruitless. Accordingly, the failure to request such an instruction did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Page 7

The principles of law involved here are straightforward. "Evidence of voluntary intoxication shall not be admitted to negate the capacity to form any mental states for the crimes charged, including, but not limited to, purpose, intent, knowledge, premeditation, deliberation, or malice aforethought, with which the accused committed the act." (Pen. Code, 29.4, subd. (a) [formerly 22].) "Evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible solely on the issue of whether or not the defendant actually formed a required specific intent, or, when charged with murder, whether the defendant premeditated, deliberated, or harbored express malice aforethought." (Id., subd. (b).) However, "[a] defendant is entitled to such an instruction only when there is substantial evidence of the defendant's voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant's 'actual formation of specific intent.' " (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 677.)