Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Trakhtenberg; Whether defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; Prejudice; Whether there was a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different; People v. Armstrong

The court held that trial counsel’s performance in failing to object to testimony by a detective (F) fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that the trial court did not err in determining that F’s testimony prejudiced “defendant to the point that there was a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the results of the proceedings would have been different.” Thus, it affirmed the order granting him a new trial. The prosecution argued that trial counsel’s failure to object to F’s testimony was not “ineffective assistance of counsel because not objecting was a matter of trial strategy.” But a review of the record revealed that other than F’s “testimony, the only other evidence supporting defendant’s convictions for possessing less than 25 grams of cocaine was the residue found on a scale in defendant’s shared apartment.” In addition, F’s “testimony bolstered the evidence to support defendant’s possession with the intent to deliver less than 50 grams of heroin conviction. Bearing in mind that ‘[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes,’” on this record, the court could not determine the trial court abused its discretion in finding that defense counsel’s failure to object to F’s “testimony fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Also, noting that it reviews a trial court’s factual findings for clear error, it concluded that in this case, the trial court properly construed F’s testimony as a “real mess-up.” Additionally, there was no error in the trial court’s finding that F “indicated twice during his testimony that he located 1.8 grams of cocaine powder, even though the lab report didn’t reflect any other substances located in the trunk tested positive for cocaine.” In a case where defendant was charged with cocaine possession, the court concurred “with the trial court that trial counsel’s failure to object to assertions by law enforcement that cocaine was present in a trunk over which defendant had control and had been seen entering earlier in the day, while in possession of a state lab report indicating there was no controlled substance in the trunk, was not a sound trial strategy.”