What is the test for determining whether a defendant's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his application for an ability-to-pay fine and fees?

Defendant alternatively argues we may address his challenge to the fine and fees because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to them and for failing to request an ability-to-pay hearing. We exercise our discretion to address the issue on the merits "to avert any claim of inadequate assistance of counsel." (People v. Yarbrough (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 303, 310.)

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, "the defendant must first show counsel's performance was deficient, in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. Second, the defendant must show resulting prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different." (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009.) On direct appeal, ineffective assistance is established "only if (1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. All other claims of

Page 11