How have courts dealt with a defendant's claim of error in sentencing?

Since defendant did not object to the trial court's reasoning as to aggravating and mitigating factors, his claim of error is forfeited. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356 [complaints about manner in which trial court exercises sentencing discretion].) We therefore address it only in light of his contention that the trial counsel's failure to object constituted ineffective assistance.

To win reversal for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that trial counsel fell below a minimum standard of competence and that a more favorable outcome was likely but for counsel's lapses. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 389.) We conclude counsel was not ineffective because there was no meritorious ground for an objection to the trial court's exercise of sentencing discretion.