The People v. Woods CA5

DISCUSSION

Woods argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not object to the restitution fine and the parole revocation restitution fine. He says that if counsel had objected, the court might instead have imposed the statutory minimums for those fines, which are $240 each. The court declined to impose a

1Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

2. probation report fee (§ 1203.1b) of $296 and did not require him to pay for the services of his public defender because it found Woods was unable to pay. He says the court would have found he also was unable to pay more than the minimums for the restitution and parole revocation restitution fines if counsel had asked it to do so. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show that counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694; see also People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 296.) It is not necessary…