Opinion ID: 1119911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Principles Governing Ineffectiveness of Counsel Claims

Text: (3) Under both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 15 of the California Constitution, a criminal defendant has the right to the effective assistance of counsel. ( In re Fields, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1069; In re Cordero (1988) 46 Cal.3d 161, 180 [249 Cal. Rptr. 342, 756 P.2d 1370].) Specifically, he is entitled to the reasonably competent assistance of an attorney acting as his diligent and conscientious advocate. ( In re Cordero, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 180.) This means that before counsel undertakes to act, or not to act, counsel must make a rational and informed decision on strategy and tactics founded upon adequate investigation and preparation. ( In re Fields, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1069; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215 [233 Cal. Rptr. 404, 729 P.2d 839].) (4) There are two components to a claim by a defendant that his counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or death sentence. ( In re Fields, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1069; People v. Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 216; Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 687 [80 L.Ed.2d at p. 693].) First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. ( Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 687 [80 L.Ed.2d at p. 693]; accord People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 [152 Cal. Rptr. 732, 590 P.2d 859, 2 A.L.R.4th 1].) This requires a showing that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. ( Strickland, supra, at p. 688 [80 L.Ed.2d at p. 693]; accord Pope, supra, at pp. 423-425.) In evaluating a defendant's showing of incompetence, we accord great deference to the tactical decisions of trial counsel. A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. ( Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 689 [80 L.Ed.2d at p. 694].) The second component requires that the defendant show prejudice resulting from counsel's alleged deficiencies. It is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.... [¶] The 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. ( Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 693-694 [80 L.Ed.2d at pp. 697-698]; In re Fields, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1070.) (5) Our standard of review of the referee's report is settled. The referee's conclusions of law are subject to independent review, as is his resolution of mixed questions of law and fact. ( In re Cordero, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 180-181; People v. Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 219.) Mixed questions `include the ultimate issue, whether assistance was ineffective, and its components, whether counsel's performance was inadequate and whether such inadequacy prejudiced the defense.' ( In re Cordero, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 181.) The referee's findings of fact, though not binding on the court, are given great weight when supported by substantial evidence. The deference accorded factual findings derives from the fact that the referee had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and their manner of testifying. ( Ibid. )