Opinion ID: 1281413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Counsel's Incompetence

Text: We have concluded that the prosecutor's references to defendant's courtroom demeanor and to the role of compassion in penalty phase deliberations were not misconduct. Nor did the prosecutor improperly inject his personal beliefs into the proceedings. The prosecutor did, however, commit misconduct in arguing to the jury that defendant had previously been convicted of personally shooting at an inhabited dwelling. Defense counsel failed to object to, or request a curative admonition regarding, the misconduct. (49) Although defendant now asserts that such omissions disclosed incompetence on trial counsel's part, we previously have indicated that a mere failure to object to evidence or argument seldom establishes counsel's incompetence. ( People v. Jackson [(1980)] 28 Cal.3d 264, 292 [168 Cal. Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149]; People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [158 Cal. Rptr. 281, 599 P.2d 587].) ( People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 772.) (41b) For the same reasons which have led us to conclude that the instructional error on the elements of the prior conviction of shooting at an inhabited dwelling was harmless ( ante, p. 256), it follows that counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's improper comments on the same subject matter was similarly nonprejudicial under the reasonable probability standard of review for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase. (See Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 698 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 770, 104 S.Ct. 2052].)