If a defendant fails to file a motion to dismiss, does his speedy trial objection be forfeited because his attorney was ineffective in not challenging the rulings continuing the trial?

Defendant alternatively argues that, if his speedy trial objection was forfeited because he did not file a motion to dismiss, forfeiture does not apply because his attorney was ineffective in not filing a motion to dismiss and not challenging the rulings continuing the trial. Defendant asserts that, in this regard, his attorney's conduct "fell below the standard of reasonableness and that he was prejudiced by that conduct." (People v. Espiritu (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 718, 725.)

To secure the reversal of a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) his counsel's performance was deficient when measured against the standard of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) counsel's deficient performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. The appellate court must presume counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance and accord great deference to counsel's tactical decisions. (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 674.)