How have courts dealt with the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal?

v. Eubanks (2011) 53 Cal.4th 110, 143.) Defendant suggests that the trial court was wrong to rely in part on his counsel's tardiness in seeking a continuance, but the court's reliance on this further reason in no way affects the correctness of its evidentiary reasons for denying the continuance. (See People v. Letner & Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 145 ["On appeal we consider the correctness of the trial court's ruling itself, not the correctness of the trial court's reasons for reaching its decision."].) And defendant argues that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective, but that claim lacks merit because the inadmissibility of the experimental evidence means that defendant was not prejudiced by any deficiency in his lawyer's representation. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 688, 694 [ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires a showing of deficient performance and prejudice].)

Defendant also asks us to review the transcripts from the in camera hearings the trial court conducted on Officer Ruiz and his partner, as well as the followup in camera hearing the court conducted after disclosing information regarding Officer Ruiz. We conducted a review of the in camera proceedings in the manner contemplated by the decision in People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1230, and found the record to be adequate to permit meaningful appellate review. (See People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1285-1286.) We have independently determined from the entire record and that of the sealed in camera proceedings that the trial court properly exercised its discretion and that the trial court did not err in refusing to disclose further materials.

Page 7

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/_________, J.
HOFFSTADT

We concur:

/s/_________, P. J.
BOREN

/s/_________, J.
ASHMANN-GERST

Footnotes:

^1. Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).

^2. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

^3. We granted defendant's request to judicially notice the trial court's amended abstract of judgment.