How have the courts dealt with a defendant's claim that counsel rendered him ineffective representation at sentencing?

Defendant's contention is without merit. Defense counsel specifically requested that no lesser included offense instructions be given. The defense theory as to count 2 was "all or nothing"defendant was either guilty of robbery in taking the bicycle by force, or he was not involved and was guilty of no crime. There is a clear and obvious tactical reason for counsel to purposely decline lesser included offense instructions under the circumstances. The "error," if any, was plainly invited. (People v. Chaney (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 253, 256, fn. 5.)

Defendant next contends that his counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective representation at sentencing, because counsel failed to object that the trial court did not state specific reasons for running the sentences on counts 4 and 5 consecutively to one another. Defendant points out that, because the robberies in counts 4 and 5 occurred on the same occasion and arose out of the same set of facts, even third-strike sentencing permitted the trial court to exercise its discretion to run those terms concurrently. (See People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 592-600.)

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, however, a defendant must show not only that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, but also that defendant was prejudiced by the alleged error. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 684-685.) We need not dwell on any question of counsel's performance, as defendant's claim fails on the prejudice prong. Defendant cannot show that it is reasonably probable that the result would have been any different, had counsel requested the court to state reasons for its sentencing choice. Defendant's criminal record stretched back many, many years. As the prosecutor pointed out in its sentencing memorandum, the only time when defendant was not harming others was when he was incarcerated. Indeed, he had six prior strike convictions for robbery and those were not his only convictions. In the current case, he added four additional robberies to his record. There is utterly no possibility the trial court's sentencing choice would have been any different had counsel called the matter to the court's attention.