☢ test - Í

Smith v. State, 309 Ga.App. 241, 709 S.E.2d 823 (March 17, 2011). Conviction for aggravated assault affirmed; no ineffective assistance based on failure to prepare for trial. “ Less than 30 minutes seems a very small amount of time to spend with a client charged with aggravated assault, even for a public defender who handles 500 cases per year as Smith's trial attorney does. Certainly, the better practice would have been to spend more time with the client given the serious nature of the charge. But the trial court could have found that the attorney's trial preparation was not limited to the time he spent with Smith. The court could have found that he also discussed the case and potential witnesses with Smith's son, he interviewed a number of witnesses, he reviewed the discovery provided by the State and followed up on the blood evidence. Based upon this preparation, Smith's trial counsel presented his defense of justification to the jury through cross-examination and argument.” Frazier v. Mathis, 286 Ga. 647, 690 S.E.2d 840 (March 15, 2010). Grant of habeas petition reversed; habeas court’s finding that defendant received ineffective assistance at entry of guilty plea was not supported by the evidence. “During the habeas hearing, evidence was produced that trial counsel's only meeting with Mathis was on the day on which he entered his guilty plea. … Although Mathis challenged actions that he characterized as counsel's failure to investigate the case, no evidence was introduced during the habeas hearing as to what the arresting officers or Mathis's co-indictees would have told counsel if they had been interviewed; no other potential witnesses were identified. From the bench, the habeas court articulated that it did not believe that the two hours that passed between the time counsel first met Mathis and Mathis's entry of his guilty plea could result in effective representation. Of course, the amount of time counsel spent conferring with Mathis ‘“is not dispositive, as there exists no magic amount of time which counsel must spend in actual conference with his client. [Cit.]” [Cit.]’ Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 304, 307(3)(b) (612 S.E.2d 789) (2005). And, Mathis did not demonstrate how any additional communication with counsel would have changed his decision to enter a guilty plea. See Rios v. State, 281 Ga. 181, 182(2) (637 S.E.2d 20) (2006). Indeed, Mathis presented no evidence from which the habeas court could conclude that the results of the challenged plea hearing would have been more beneficial to him had counsel spent more time with him, or investigated the case further; the only evidence placed before the habeas court was that the information available to counsel would have been the same, there would have been no change in the circumstances surrounding the State's prosecution of Mathis, and hence no change in counsel's advice. Accordingly, the habeas court erred in granting the petition. Zant v. Means, 271 Ga. 711 (522 S.E.2d 449) (1999).” Accord, Jackson v. State , 314 Ga.App. 272, 724 S.E.2d 9 (February 22, 2012); Fitzpatrick v. State , 317 Ga.App. 873, 733 S.E.2d 46 (October 11, 2012); Betancourt v. State , 322 Ga.App. 201, 744 S.E.2d 419 (June 12, 2013), affirmed on other grounds sub nom. Hernandez v. State , 294 Ga. 903, 757 S.E.2d 109 (March 28, 2014); Davis v. State , 295 Ga. 168, 758 S.E.2d 296 (May 5, 2014); Lowe v. State , 295 Ga. 623, 759 S.E.2d 841 (June 16, 2014); Boddie v. State , 327 Ga.App. 667, 760 S.E.2d 668 (June 19, 2014); Phillips v. State , 329 Ga.App. 279, 764 S.E.2d 879 (October 15, 2014); Gipson v. State , 332 Ga.App. 309, 772 S.E.2d 402 (May 6, 2015); Henry v. State , 297 Ga. 74, 772 S.E.2d 678 (May 11, 2015). Mora v. State, 295 Ga.App. 641, 673 S.E.2d 23 (January 23, 2009). No ineffective assistance from failing to show defendant the videoape of his police interview; defendant “does not explain why watching the videotape would have prepared him to testify and makes no attempt to demonstrate how he was harmed by this alleged failure. A mere conclusory allegation, without more, is insufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.” Sellers v. State, 294 Ga.App. 536, 669 S.E.2d 544 (November 14, 2008). No ineffective assistance shown from limited number of pre-trial meetings. “[N]either the total number of meetings nor the time spent in meetings are dispositive, as each case must be judged according to its own circumstances and complexity. Hand v. State, 205 Ga.App. 467, 469(2) (422 S.E.2d 316) (1992). Sellers met with his counsel on multiple occasions and discussed the possibility of a plea bargain, the nature of the evidence, the range of possible sentences, and whether to testify himself. Accordingly, the trial court's finding that Sellers' trial counsel was not ineffective is not clearly erroneous, and must be affirmed.” Millsap v. State, 275 Ga.App. 732, 621 S.E.2d 837 (October 5, 2005). “Millsap’s trial counsel testified that he did not spend a lot of time with Millsap between the probation revocation hearing and the trial, which were approximately six months apart, because he did not see a need for it. Trial counsel further testified that they had reviewed the case and that the trial was ‘essentially the probation revocation re-hashed.’ The fact that trial counsel met with Millsap ‘for an amount of time claimed to be inadequate is not dispositive, as there exists no magic amount of time which counsel must spend in actual conference with his client.’ McCutchen v. State, 276 Ga. 532, 533 (579 S.E.2d 732) (2003) (citation and punctuation omitted). Based on trial counsel’s testimony, the trial court was authorized to resolve this dispute in favor of the state and find that Millsap failed to carry his burden of showing that the consultation was deficient. See id. ” Accord, Robertson v. State , 277 Ga.App. 231, 626 S.E.2d 206 (January 17, 2006); McCoy v. State , 278 Ga.App. 492, 629 S.E.2d