What is the burden of proving inadequate trial assistance?

Of course, the burden of proving a claim of inadequate trial assistance is on the appellant. (People v. Camden, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 816, 129 Cal.Rptr. 438, 549 P.2d 1110.) Thus, appellant must show that trial counsel acted or failed to act in a manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys acting as diligent advocates. In addition, appellant must establish that counsel's acts or omissions resulted in the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious defense.

Once an appellant has met these burdens, the appellate court must look to see if the record contains any explanation for the challenged aspect of representation. If it does, the court must inquire whether the explanation demonstrates that counsel was reasonably competent and acting as a conscientious, diligent advocate. For example, where the record shows that counsel's omissions resulted from an informed tactical choice within the range of reasonable competence, the conviction must be affirmed. (E. g., People v. Fain (1969) 70 Cal.2d 588, 600, 75 Cal.Rptr. 633, 451 P.2d 65.) In contrast, where the record shows that counsel has failed to research the law

Page 740

In some cases, however the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged. In such circumstances, unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation, these cases are affirmed on appeal. ¹⁶ (E. g., People v. Miller (1972) 7 Cal.3d 562, 572-574, 102 Cal.Rptr. 841, 498 P.2d 1089.) Otherwise, appellate courts would become engaged "in the perilous process of second-guessing." (Id., at p. 573, 102 Cal.Rptr. at p. 848, 498 P.2d at p. 1096.) Reversals would be ordered unnecessarily in cases where there were, in fact, good reasons for the aspect of counsel's representation under attack. Indeed, such reasons might lead a new defense counsel on retrial to do exactly what the original counsel did, making manifest the waste of judicial resources caused by reversal on an incomplete record.