How have the courts treated a defendant's ineffective counsel in sentencing?

simply because he did not repeat what was in the sentencing memoranda, instead focusing on the court's intention to sentence defendant to state prison. (See People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 122 ["Counsel is not ineffective for failing to make frivolous or futile motions."].)

Defendant also failed to demonstrate his counsel's omission was prejudicial. To establish prejudice, the defendant must make a showing "sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome" that, but for counsel's performance, there was a reasonable probability "the result of the proceeding would have been different." (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694.) Defendant has not made such a showing. First, the court indicated it was not open to probation. Nor has defendant demonstrated the court had any inclination to consider a low term for count 1. To the contrary, the court expressly wanted defendant to "get a taste of prison." Second, although his counsel failed to argue that certain misdemeanors were subject to section 654, he concedes the prosecutor agreedand stated at the sentencing hearingthe misdemeanors should run concurrently. Defendant also does not explain how further argument from his counsel would have had a reasonable probability of altering the court's sentencing. Finally, though counsel failed to highlight mitigating factors, these factors were set forth in the sentencing memoranda. Defendant also made an oral statement at the hearing regarding his lack of past violence, good conduct in jail, and desire to reconnect with his family. The court, however, was unmoved by these presentations, and commented on defendant's lack of remorse. Accordingly, defendant has failed to show that any further argument on these issues would have impacted the court's sentencing decision.