If defendant fails to raise his statute of limitations argument in the trial, can he continue to do so on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel?

Defendant argues, and the People do not dispute, that even if he forfeited his statute of limitations argument, he can raise it "under the rubric of ineffective assistance of counsel." (See People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146 [appellate court may address forfeited argument to avoid a subsequent claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on habeas corpus].) The People nonetheless argue defendant cannot show that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a statute of limitations argument in the trial court. We agree.

To find that defendant suffered prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show (1) his counsel's performance was deficient, falling below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) absent his counsel's error, it is reasonably probable that the result would have been more favorable to him. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688.)