How does the Court of Appeal review a denial of a motion for a new trial based on a claim of ineffective assistance?

However, we take a different approach when we review a denial of a motion for a new trial based on a claim of ineffective assistance. We engage in a two-step process akin to our review of a ruling on a motion to suppress. (People v. Taylor (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 720, 724.) First, we defer to the trial court's determination of the relevant facts. "On appeal, all presumptions favor the trial court's exercise of its power to judge the credibility of witnesses, resolve any conflicts in testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw factual inferences." (Ibid.) If the trial court's findings of fact, expressed or implied, are supported by substantial evidence we will uphold them on appeal. (Ibid.) Second, we examine the trial court's determination, based on the facts, that defendant has failed to demonstrate his trial counsel was ineffective or failed to show he suffered prejudice as a result of the alleged deficiencies. These are mixed determinations of law and fact. "To the extent that these are questions of law, the appellate court is not bound by the substantial evidence rule, but has ' "the ultimate responsibility . . . to measure the

Page 7