☢ test - Í

493 (March 27, 2006); Mikell v. State , 281 Ga.App. 739, 637 S.E.2d 142 (October 4, 2006); Rios v. State , 281 Ga. 181, 637 S.E.2d 20 (October 30, 2006); Garvin v. State , 283 Ga.App. 242, 641 S.E.2d 176 (December 13, 2006); King v. State , 287 Ga.App. 375, 651 S.E.2d 496 (August 30, 2007); Ruffin v. State , 289 Ga. 87, 656 S.E.2d 140 (January 8, 2008); Defrancisco v. State , 289 Ga.App. 115, 656 S.E.2d 238 (January 8, 2008); Kilby v. State , 289 Ga.App. 457, 657 S.E.2d 567 (January 31, 2008); Crane v. State , 294 Ga.App. 321, 671 S.E.2d 123 (October 31, 2008); Mora v. State , 295 Ga.App. 641, 673 S.E.2d 23 (January 23, 2009); Sims v. State , 299 Ga.App. 698, 683 S.E.2d 668 (August 17, 2009); Cruz v. State , 305 Ga.App. 805, 700 S.E.2d 631 (August 20, 2010); Murphy v. State , 314 Ga.App. 753, 725 S.E.2d 866 (March 12, 2012). Henry v. State, 279 Ga. 615, 619 S.E.2d 609 (September 19, 2005). “[Defendant’s] complaint of an insufficient number of meetings [with counsel] for inadequate amounts of time ‘“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, 612 S.E.2d 789] (May 9, 2005). See also Morgan v. State, 275 Ga. 222, 228(10) (564 S.E.2d 192) (2002). Moreover, [defendant] does not specifically describe how additional communications with his lawyer ‘would have changed the outcome of his trial. [Cit.]’ Washington v. State, 274 Ga. 428, 430(2) (554 S.E.2d 173) (2001).” Accord, many cases including Giddens v. State , 276 Ga.App. 353, 623 S.E.2d 204 (November 14, 2005); Smith v. State , 281 Ga.App. 587, 636 S.E.2d 748 (September 18, 2006); Hutchens v. State , 281 Ga.App. 610, 636 S.E.2d 773 (September 20, 2006) (“[n]either the facts nor law involved in this case were complex, and … Hutchens agreed with counsel on the strategy employed”); Sevostiyanova v. State , 313 Ga.App. 729, 722 S.E.2d 333 (January 12, 2012). Curtis v. State, 271 Ga.App. 239, 609 S.E.2d 171 (January 6, 2005). “The length of time that plea counsel spent in consultation with Curtis is not in itself sufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. See Swantner v. State, 244 Ga.App. 372, 374-375(2)(a) (535 S.E.2d 343) (2000) (two-and-a-half hour consultation alone not inadequate); Tahamtani v. State, 177 Ga.App. 52, 53 (338 S.E.2d 488) (1985) (half-hour meeting immediately prior to guilty plea hearing, without more, does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel). And because Curtis has not alleged, let alone established, any other specific way in which his plea counsel was deficient, he has failed to carry his burden of showing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.” Baldivia v. State, 267 Ga.App. 266, 599 S.E.2d 188 (April 7, 2004). Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails where defendant “‘does not describe for us how additional pre-trial communications would have changed the outcome of his trial.’ [Cit.]” English v. State, 260 Ga.App. 620, 580 S.E.2d 351 (March 27, 2003). “[N]o specified amount of time exists on ‘which a counsel must spend in preparation for trial; each situation must be judged upon its own circumstances and in light of its own degree of complexity.’” Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel merely because counsel was appointed six days prior to trial; did not meet with defendant until Friday before Monday trial; and did not seek continuance. Defendant did not want continuance, and said so on record in colloquy with court. Also, defendant had previously been represented, and prior counsel turned over to trial counsel “‘a great deal of discovery.’” Accord, Morgan v. State , 275 Ga. 222, 564 S.E.2d 192 (2002); Mitchell v. State , 279 Ga. 158, 611 S.E.2d 15 (March 28, 2005); Phillips v. State , 280 Ga. 728, 632 S.E.2d 131 (July 6, 2006). Fleming v. State, 241 Ga.App. 61, 526 S.E.2d 91 (November 22, 1999). Physical precedent only. Defendant’s conviction for vehicular homicide affirmed; no ineffective assistance based on counsel’s alleged failure to spend time preparing for trial. “‘[T]he amount of time trial counsel spent with [defendant] is not determinative of whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Elrod v. State, 222 Ga.App. 704, 708(3)(b), 475 S.E.2d 710 (1996).” 24. CONTINUANCE Adams v. State, 298 Ga. 371, 782 S.E.2d 36 (January 19, 2016). Malice murder conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance of counsel. “Adams … argues that lead counsel, who was appointed approximately 10–14 days before trial, should have requested a continuance of trial because ‘two weeks or less is clearly insufficient time for an attorney to properly prepare for a murder trial.’ Aside from vaguely asserting that trial counsel needed additional time to ‘get up to speed,’ Adams offers no specifics regarding how counsel’s performance at trial would have been enhanced by having more time to prepare. In light of Adams’ failure to identify any particular need for a continuance and the fact that any such request would have been left to the sound discretion of the trial court, see Greene v. State, 274 Ga. 220(3) (552 S.E.2d 834) (2001), Adams cannot establish ineffective assistance in counsel’s failure to make such a request.”