Is ineffective assistance of counsel ineffective at a preliminary hearing?

be resolved on the present record. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 267 [an appellate court should not find ineffective assistance of counsel unless all facts relevant to that claim have been developed in the record].) Furthermore, the record belies defendant's claim that he did not understand his due process rights. Defendant was assisted by a Spanish speaking interpreter throughout the plea hearing and was asked by the court if he understood that he had a right to a preliminary examination and all the rights that went along with that. Defendant confirmed that he did understand. Moreover, defendant sat through an extensive preliminary hearing even though he was never held to answer, which undermines his claim that he did not understand his rights.

As to defendant's general assertion that the arresting officer committed perjury during the preliminary examination, we note that defendant does not identify the officer involved or point to the place in the transcript where this perjury is alleged to have occurred. More importantly, defendant's claim that an officer committed perjury does not go to the issues fundamental to his plea: defendant's understanding of his own constitutional rights, the consequences of his plea, and the voluntariness of his decision to plead guilty. As noted, defendant stated orally on the record that he understood his constitutional rights and the consequences of his plea. He stated that he was not coerced into pleading guilty. He stated that he had had the opportunity to consult with counsel and that he was satisfied with his advice. Defendant's pleas satisfied constitutional standards. (Boykin v. Alabama, supra, 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl, supra, 1 Cal.3d 122.)