How have courts dealt with ineffective assistance of counsel claims?

Here, the record sheds no light on why counsel did not object to the amounts of the fines. The record does not preclude the possibility that counsel did not object because the amounts simply did not appear unreasonable. Appellant's claim accordingly "is more appropriately decided in a habeas corpus proceeding. [Citations.]" (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.)

Appellant relies on People v. Le (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 925, 935-936, in which the appellate court agreed with the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and reduced the amount of the restitution fine. People v. Le, however, is inapposite because, in that case, trial counsel failed to object to an improper consecutive sentence and to the trial court's improper inclusion of a conviction in calculating the amount of the fine. (Id. at p. 935.) The court accordingly found that trial counsel's error was prejudicial. (Id. at p. 936.)

Page 9