Is a defendant's failure to object on appeal cognizable because the issue is not cognizable on appeal because trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object?

Defendant's alternative argument that the issue is cognizable on appeal because trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object below is without merit. "Failure to object rarely constitutes constitutionally ineffective legal representation." (People v. Boyette [(2002)] 29 Cal.4th [381,] 424.)" (People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 207.) In addition, the record on appeal does not contain a reason for counsel's failure to object, so the issue is not properly presented on direct appeal. (Ibid.) Finally, because we conclude below that there was no prosecutorial misconduct, counsel's failure to object therefore could not constitute ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (See Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687.)

The contention also fails on the merits. We resolve this issue based on familiar principles. "'"A prosecutor's intemperate behavior violates the federal Constitution when it comprises a pattern of conduct so 'egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process.'"' [Citations.] Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves '"'the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.'"' [Citation.]" [Citation.]" (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 819.) "'"'A prosecutor is given wide latitude during argument. The argument may be vigorous as long as it amounts to fair comment on the evidence, which can include reasonable inferences, or deductions to be drawn therefrom.'"'" (Ibid.) To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on comments to a jury, the defendant must show a reasonable likelihood the jury understood

Page 15