Can a defendant's claim that he was in custody during a pre-arranged encounter with a police officer that resulted in a custodial interrogation?

have been administered immediately. (See Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at p. 444 ["By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way"].) Defendant's theory that his trial counsel could have developed evidence that defendant was in custody at the time the encounter commenced is even weaker than his theory with respect to his alleged detention. (See California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (per curiam) ["the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement' of the degree associated with a formal arrest"]; People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 679 [explaining that custody generally does not include a temporary detention for investigation].) But, again, to the extent there may have been any evidence to support this theory, there could be a satisfactory explanation for trial counsel's decision not to introduce it, and so we cannot conclude there was ineffective assistance of counsel.

B. Section 25850