People v. Ledesma

In People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215, 233 Cal. Rptr. 404, the California Supreme Court explained that "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 assistance of counsel. The ultimate purpose of this right is to protect the defendant's fundamental right to a trial that is both fair in its conduct and reliable in its result. Construed in light of its purpose, the right entitles the defendant not to some bare assistance but rather to effective assistance.Specifically, it entitles him to 'the reasonably competent assistance of an attorney acting as his diligent conscientious advocate".) The high court in Ledesma further explained the showing necessary to reverse a conviction on this ground: "'A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction . . . has two components.' First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient.' Specifically, he must establish that 'counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness . . . under prevailing professional norms.' In determining whether counsel's performance was deficient, a court must in general exercise deferential scrutiny." ( Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 216.) The California Supreme Court outlined the showing necessary to order to prevail on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. It explained that such a showing has two components: "'First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient.' Specifically, he must establish that 'counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness . . . under prevailing professional norms.' In determining whether counsel's performance was deficient, a court must in general exercise deferential scrutiny." (Id. at p. 216.) The court then explained the second component: "A criminal defendant must also establish prejudice before he can obtain relief on an ineffective-assistance claim." (Id. at p. 217.) "'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.' " (Id. at pp. 217-218.)