☢ test - Í

new trial hearing.’ Foote v. State, 251 Ga.App. 427, 429(1), 553 S.E.2d 644 (2001) (footnote omitted).” Rice v. State, 292 Ga. 191, 733 S.E.2d 755 (October 29, 2012). Capital murder and related convictions affirmed; no abuse of discretion in denial of continuance to procure mitigation witness. Due to defendant’s lack of cooperation, counsel had been unable to find his former psychologist, who had first diagnosed him for depression almost 18 years prior to trial. “On the day that the sentencing phase of Rice's criminal trial was to begin, with the jury already sequestered, defense counsel announced to the trial court that they had finally succeeded in locating Dr. Cardin but that she was on vacation in South Carolina with her daughter for four more days. Defense counsel requested a continuance of three days. Defense counsel also explained that they had been unable to locate Dr. Cardin more quickly during the preceding weeks because she had been out of the country. The trial court offered funds for Dr. Cardin and her daughter to fly to and from Georgia on the same day so that she could testify and advised defense counsel to contact Dr. Cardin by telephone immediately, but the trial court denied Rice's request for a continuance. Defense counsel made no proffer at Rice's criminal trial of what Dr. Cardin's testimony might have been beyond stating that she could testify about Rice's mental condition many years in the past when she treated him, could testify about the fact that she and he were friends, and could testify about ‘some things as part of the mitigating circumstances as well.’ Under these circumstances, particularly in light of the trial court's prior knowledge that Dr. Cardin very likely had not been contacted much earlier simply because Rice refused to assist his counsel in doing so and in light of the availability of expert witnesses who had examined Rice much more recently than Dr. Cardin, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance and that Rice has failed to show that he was harmed. See Loyd v. State, 288 Ga. 481(3) (705 S.E.2d 616) (2011).” Simmons v. State, 291 Ga. 705, 733 S.E.2d 280 (October 15, 2012). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; no abuse of discretion in denying continuance “to gather more data or obtain an expert's opinion regarding DNA evidence that [counsel] thought would implicate another person. The trial court found that since Simmons had not opted in to reciprocal discovery under OCGA § 17–16–2, he was not entitled to additional documents, nor the delay to obtain them.” Danenberg v. State, 291 Ga. 439, 729 S.E.2d 315 (June 25, 2012). Malice murder conviction affirmed; no abuse of discretion in refusing continuance request on opening day of trial. “Counsel's request was based on: the State's production, 35 days before trial commenced, of over 11,000 pages of appellant's medical records, [fn] including a CD containing over 570 phone calls from appellant to counsel, family, and third parties that allegedly required evaluation since the recorded conversations might contain privileged material and additional evidence of appellant's incompetency; the continuous production of new documents into the week of trial; the State's filing of additional witness lists in both the competency trial and the criminal trial, adding fifteen witnesses; [fn] and the failure of the State to provide the raw data of psychological testing done at Central State Hospital, which the hospital was ordered to produce in an August 2008 order issued by the trial court.” Powers v. State, 314 Ga.App. 733, 725 S.E.2d 848 (March 12, 2012). Rape and related convictions affirmed; 1. no error in denying continuance despite late identification of witnesses by State. Friday before trial, State added defendant’s wife to witness list; “she was not a ‘surprise’ witness because Powers knew of her existence and of any relevant contact he had with her during the events at issue. She was added to the witness list as soon as the State discovered she was available to testify, on the Friday before trial. The State also admitted that it had added a police officer to its witness list as a substitute for another officer who might not be available, to testify about events surrounding Powers' capture after he escaped from custody. … In this case, Powers waived the issue with regard to the substituted police officer because he withdrew his objection. He did not ask to interview either witness before they testified and does not contend that he was surprised by the witnesses' testimony or prejudiced by not knowing earlier that they were going to testify. Further, he made no showing that the State acted in bad faith in failing to list either witness earlier. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Powers' motion for a continuance and permitting the witnesses to testify. Taylor v. State, 305 Ga.App. 748, 753(2)(a) (700 S.E.2d 841) (2010); Rollinson v. State, 276 Ga.App. 375, 378(1)(c) (623 S.E.2d 211) (2005).” Accord, Murray v. State , 328 Ga.App. 192, 761 S.E.2d 590 (July 10, 2014). 2. No error in denying continuance based on defendant’s alleged mental incompetency to stand trial. “The court found that Powers had not been diligent in telling his lawyer about any mental health issues until after the jury had been selected and sworn. The court further found that Powers had presented insufficient evidence of mental incompetence to require an evaluation, especially considering ‘the coherence and intelligence’ he demonstrated during his testimony at the hearing the day before and during his taped interview with the detective on the day of the crimes. Mental competency is presumed, so absent evidence of a defendant's incompetency, a trial court need not conduct a competency hearing. Strong v. State, 263 Ga.