☢ test - Í

no ineffective assistance by eliciting damaging evidence on cross “that Donald had been fired [from the restaurant where the crimes occurred] and was angry. At the motion for new trial, trial counsel testified that he thought the State would introduce evidence regarding Donald's termination, and ‘I didn't want the jury to think I was ... holding back. And we were going to deal with the fact that he had been fired or terminated, but that that didn't factor into this whole situation.... We were just going to get it out in the open. I didn't want [the prosecutor] to be the first one to ... mention it.’ ‘[D]ecisions regarding whether and how to conduct cross-examinations and what evidence to introduce are matters of trial strategy and tactics and are within the exclusive province of counsel after consultation with the client.’ (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Buis v. State, 309 Ga.App. 644, 647–648, 710 S.E.2d 850 (2011).” Accord, Holder v. State , 319 Ga.App. 239, 736 S.E.2d 449 (November 27, 2012). 2. No ineffective assistance from asking State’s witness “during cross-examination if he could identify the perpetrator in court because Jones had not done so on direct examination. At the motion for new trial hearing, trial counsel testified that he asked the question because he sometimes asked witnesses to make in-court identifications ‘hoping they'll say no, I can't. And then I use that in my closing argument that they didn't identify. And then if they say ... yeah[,] I could always say, well, you didn't identify him at the scene, did you. You were never shown a photo I.D.’ ‘Trial counsel's strategic decision was reasonable, and such a strategic decision is not grounds for finding ineffective assistance.’ (Punctuation omitted.) Cobb v. State, 309 Ga.App. 70, 77(4)(b), 709 S.E.2d 9 (2011).” Sledge v. State, 312 Ga.App. 97, 717 S.E.2d 682 (October 18, 2011). Convictions for DUI and suspended license affirmed; no ineffective assistance where counsel showed video of defendant’s prior DUI stop. “The defense counsel testified at the hearing on Sledge's motion for new trial that his theory of the case was to show through the video that the same two officers stopped Sledge both times and that they were targeting him. Counsel also testified that he felt he needed the video of the first case because no video existed of the second stop and the video of the first showed the poor investigation by the arresting officer, who was also the arresting officer in the second case. Although another trial defense counsel may have pursued a different strategy or tactic, this does not constitute a denial of the effective assistance of counsel. Heard v. State, 177 Ga.App. 802, 804(5) (341 S.E.2d 459) (1986).” Delgiudice v. State, 308 Ga.App. 397, 707 S.E.2d 603 (March 14, 2011). Convictions for kidnapping with bodily injury, and related offenses, affirmed; no ineffective assistance where counsel elicited from detective that someone other than victim had identified defendant as being at the scene of the crimes. “Because the discussion between the court and defense counsel indicates that defense counsel had done extensive discovery in the case and was surprised by the detective's answer, we do not find that counsel's performance was deficient.” Boatright v. State, 308 Ga.App. 266, 707 S.E.2d 158 (March 8, 2011). Child molestation and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance where counsel questioned officer about murder charge against defendant in Texas. Questioning was strategic, as charge was found to be unfounded and dismissed. “Trial counsel stated that he introduced the evidence for the purpose of showing that the police had a vendetta against Boatright based upon an unsupported ‘trumped up’ charge.” Brown v. State, 307 Ga.App. 99, 704 S.E.2d 227 (November 24, 2010). Convictions for cocaine trafficking and related offenses affirmed; no ineffective assistance where trial counsel elicited evidence of defendant’s prior conviction, where evidence that defendant was on probation was admitted to explain police search of defendant’s home. “[T]rial counsel's decision to elicit details of the crime for which Brown was on probation (aggravated assault) rather than allowing the jury to speculate about the nature of the prior crime, i.e., that Brown was on probation for another drug offense, was a tactical decision and a valid exercise of trial counsel's professional judgment. [Cit.]” Wood v. State, 304 Ga.App. 52, 695 S.E.2d 391 (May 12, 2010). Defendant’s conviction for entering an auto affirmed; no ineffective assistance where counsel brought up a prior burglary at victim’s home. “Counsel testified that she believed it was a good trial strategy to show that the victim overreacted to Wood being on his property because he had been burglarized before” by someone other than defendant. Martinez v. State, 303 Ga.App. 166, 692 S.E.2d 766 (March 26, 2010). 1. Defendant’s conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine affirmed; no ineffective assistance where counsel strategically elicited potentially harmful information on cross. “Lopez[/Martinez] … argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by eliciting testimony from the narcotics investigator on cross-examination that the informant told the investigator that he had bought drugs from Lopez in the past. We discern no ineffective assistance under the circumstances here. … When the investigator responded that the informant said that he had bought drugs from Lopez in the past, trial counsel attempted to impeach the investigator by pointing