Opinion ID: 2581010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: Denial of effective assistance of defense counsel at the guilt phase of the trial

Text: Defendant brings together under one global claim the disparate allegations of asserted ineffective assistance of trial counsel, advanced above under various claims and subclaims. As noted above, in most respects we have concluded that the record does not preclude a satisfactory explanation for counsel's actions, and hence we do not find that counsel acted deficiently. ( Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th 264, 266, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134; Pope, supra, 23 Cal.3d 412, 426, 152 Cal.Rptr. 732, 590 P.2d 859.) Defendant has failed to establish deficient performance under an objective standard of professional reasonableness. ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 687-691, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-217, 233 Cal.Rptr. 404, 729 P.2d 839.) In any event, for the reasons recounted ante, part II.C, defendant also has failed to establish prejudice, that is, a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome in the absence of counsel's assertedly deficient performance. ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 691-696, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d 171, 217-218, 233 Cal.Rptr. 404, 729 P.2d 839.) As we have noted above, on the record before us it is not reasonably probable that, had trial counsel performed in a manner different from what defendant now challenges, the jury's verdict of guilt or special circumstance finding would have been different. We conclude that trial counsel's alleged failings, viewed singly or cumulatively, are insufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.)