Is a defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's characterization of the burden of proof?

As noted, defendant claims his trial attorney provided prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the prosecutor's characterization of the burden of proof. Because the prosecutor did not misstate the burden of proof, it is axiomatic counsel had no basis for objection. "'Trial counsel is not required to make futile objections, advance meritless arguments or undertake useless procedural challenges merely to create a record impregnable to assault for claimed inadequacy of counsel. [Citation.]'" (People v. Stratton (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 87, 97, quoting People v. Jones (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 820, 827.) Thus, defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's characterization of the burden of proof also fails.

Page 7

Section 654 states, in pertinent part, "An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision." "[T]he purpose of section 654 'is to insure that a defendant's punishment will be commensurate with his culpability.'" (People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1211.)