☢ test - Í

not to commit a pre-planned robbery”) and Einglett v. State , 283 Ga.App. 497, 642 S.E.2d 160 (2007) (“trial counsel's strategy of attempting to portray his client as a drug addict, rather than as an armed robber, was a reasonable trial strategy”). Shears v. State, 332 Ga.App. 514, 773 S.E.2d 776 (June 16, 2015). Conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine affirmed; no ineffective assistance based on “asking a question that led to harmful testimony.” “Shears argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because, while cross-examining a police officer, counsel asked a question that led the state to elicit harmful testimony from a subsequent witness. … Even if that question constituted deficient performance, however, Shears did not show prejudice. ‘He failed to prove that if his attorney had [not asked the question of the police officer], the [s]tate could not have introduced the [damaging testimony of Malinasky].’ Mayberry v. State, 301 Ga.App. 503, 509(4)(c), 687 S.E.2d 893 (2009).” In fact, the State had Malinasky under subpoena and available to testify, anyway. Sorrells v. State, 326 Ga.App. 888, 755 S.E.2d 586 (March 28, 2014). Physical precedent only. Conviction for sale of cocaine affirmed, but remanded to consider ineffective assistance. “[T]he trial court was authorized to conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, there was no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” “Sorrells points out that the drug transaction occurred at night and that the street-side encounter was brief. He asserts that, because the detectives had attempted to make other drug buys that night, [Officer] Stapleton ‘could have confused the identification,’ pointing out that Stapleton admittedly did not take any notes or otherwise record any physical description of the seller of the cocaine. Sorrells points out further that, prior to being shown the single photograph, Stapleton had given the backup detective no description of the seller.” Evidence supporting admission of officer’s identification of defendant: this was the only “street-side drug transaction” the officers conducted that night; area was illuminated by street lights and vehicle headlights, and officer’s eyes were adjusted to the conditions; the “exchange had taken ‘[t]hirty seconds to a minute,’ during which time the seller had leaned down and toward his opened window, then reached across him which had brought the seller's face to within ‘[a] matter of inches’ of his own. Stapleton testified that ‘it was not the kind of situation where you would avert your face,’ explaining that the whole purpose for the encounter was ‘to identify local street-level dealers, to go out and attempt to purchase ... drugs from street-level dealers.’ Further, Stapleton had verbally engaged the seller.” Officer was trained in identification; recognized defendant from the community (though he didn’t know his name); and “immediately recognized” him when shown defendant’s picture a “short while” later. Allen v. State, 293 Ga. 626, 748 S.E.2d 881 (September 23, 2013). Malice murder and firearms convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance where defense counsel asked character witness about defendant’s prior conviction for underage alcohol possession. Defense character witness had been cross-examined about his familiarity with the conviction; “it appears that the follow-up questions about Allen’s previous arrest may have been a strategic attempt to ameliorate any damage, by [witness’s] cross-examination, to Allen’s attempt to establish his good character and reputation in the community.” Porter v. State, 292 Ga. 292, 736 S.E.2d 409 (January 7, 2013). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance where defendant testified on direct that he had never possessed a gun, which “allowed the State to present evidence of a previous incident during which appellant was apprehended with a loaded gun in his pocket after fleeing from police. Appellant contends counsel's performance was deficient because the question about the gun required appellant to either admit he previously possessed a gun or lie about his prior possession.” Defendant didn’t call counsel to testify at motion for new trial hearing, so his decision to ask that question is presumed strategic. “ While we do not know what defense counsel knew about appellant's prior criminal history, trial counsel is not required to anticipate that his client will mislead him or lie on the stand. See Adams v. State, 274 Ga. 854, 856 (561 S.E.2d 101) (2002).” Berry v. State, 318 Ga.App. 806, 734 S.E.2d 768 (November 27, 2012). Cocaine trafficking and related convictions affirmed; counsel’s performance was deficient where he tendered evidence revealing defendant’s other drug-related crimes. Counsel tendered police report to impeach officer’s version of events, but failed to redact references to defendant’s past offenses. Citing Emilio v. State, 263 Ga.App. 604, 605, 588 S.E.2d 797 (2003) “(finding defense counsel's failure to redact bad character evidence stating that defendant was ‘wanted in five states’ from a defense exhibit was deficient performance and rejecting argument that it had been introduced as part of a trial strategy to impeach a witness); Whitaker v. State, 276 Ga.App. 226, 227, 622 S.E.2d 916 (2005) (finding that defense counsel's introduction of an unredacted exhibit showing that defendant had previously been charged with an identical crime and two closely related crimes constituted ineffective assistance, even in light of defense counsel's statement that the evidence was introduced to impeach the State's witness).” No prejudice, however, based on overwhelming evidence of guilt.