Does trial counsel shirk his constitutional responsibility to provide competent counsel by failing to ask the court to instruct on a bogus self-defense defense?

Nor did trial counsel shirk his constitutional responsibility to provide competent counsel by failing to ask the court to instruct on a bogus defense. No one disputes the basic principle of law that a criminal defendant does not receive constitutionally adequate legal assistance if defense counsel's failure to request an instruction results in a withdrawal of a potentially meritorious defense. (People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 215-218.) As explained above, there is no substantial evidence that self-defense was a potentially meritorious defense. To the contrary, the inference defendant urges us to draw that he was in imminent danger from the mere fact the cyclist walked out of the office and in his direction strains credulity. The lawyer had no obligation to assert a

Page 8