People v. Duggan CA3

DISCUSSION

I Defendant contends he received ineffective assistance because his counsel at resentencing failed to present the trial court with all available resentencing options that may have resulted in a more favorable sentence. Specifically, defendant contends his counsel: (1) failed to present all possible sentencing alternatives for his 25-to-life firearm enhancement, and (2) failed to request the trial court exercise its newly granted discretion under section 6541 to stay his sentence for aggravated mayhem (seven years to life) and instead enforce the sentence for attempted murder (the upper term of nine years). “[T]o establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his or her counsel’s performance was deficient and that the defendant suffered

1 Section 654 as amended allows a trial court to select which sentence to stay in contrast to the previous language, which required the trial court to impose the longest possible term. (People v. Mendoza (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 843, 861-862.)

3 prejudice as a result of such deficient performance.” (People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181, 198; see Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-692.)…