Opinion ID: 1372628
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicable Legal Standards on Review.

Text: (51a) As we have explained in numerous cases following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Strickland v. Washington [, supra, ] 466 U.S. 668 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 104 S.Ct. 2052]: `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.... First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. ... This requires a showing that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. ... In evaluating a defendant's [claim] 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. ... [¶] 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.' ( In re Jackson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 578, 601 [11 Cal. Rptr.2d 531, 835 P.2d 371], quoting In re Marquez, supra, 1 Cal.4th 584, 602-603.) The defendant must make the showings of deficient performance and resulting prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence. ( People v. Mincey, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 449.) The defendant need not, however, show that it is more likely than not that he or she would have obtained a better result. ( In re Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 945, 956 [13 Cal. Rptr.2d 269, 838 P.2d 1222].) (52) The referee's findings of fact are entitled to deference when, as we have generally concluded to be the case here, there is substantial evidence to support them. ( In re Jackson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 585.) This is so because the referee can observe the witnesses' demeanor, but this court cannot. ( Ibid. ) On questions of mixed law and fact or of a purely legal nature, however, we reach our conclusions on the basis of an independent review of the record and the law. ( Ibid. ) (51b) Both any deficiency in counsel's performance and any prejudice occasioned thereby are mixed questions of law and fact. ( Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 698 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 700].)