Does a defendant have to prove that he would have avoided a conviction if he had asserted his speedy trial rights?

Defendant also contends that an assertion of his speedy trial rights would have placed him in a position to "negotiate a plea bargain." He relies not on anything in this record, but on the abstract generalization that "[p]lea bargains are the default outcome of our criminal justice system. Respondent points to no factors that would exempt this case from that default." Such an argument does not carry an appellant's burden to establish that a posited error was prejudicial. (See Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 107 [appellant "must articulate prejudice specific to the particular case"]; id. at p. 108 [rejecting abstract argument as "no substitute for a prejudice analysis"].) To find a posited error prejudicial, the court must conclude that the defendant would probably have obtained a more favorable outcome in the absence of the error. (Id. at p. 105 [appellant must show not only error but "resulting prejudice, and the probability of a more favorable outcome"].) If the mere possibility of a more favorable result by plea bargain were a sufficient showing of prejudice, many errors would become, as a practical

Page 20