☢ test - Í

information to the trial, (ii) their strategy from the outset was to present no evidence (they did not want to give the State anything to attack), (iii) he feared that cross-examination of Clements based on a videotape of the shoplifting would harm her defense, (iv) the State could then use her prior convictions for felony shoplifting against her, and (v) she had a better chance of being acquitted if she did not testify. Advice in the area of whether to testify ‘would fall within the ambit of trial strategy and, as such, generally not be subject to challenge.’ Rogers v. State, 265 Ga.App. 628, 631(2) (595 S.E.2d 326) (2004).” Hamilton v. State, 297 Ga.App. 47, 676 S.E.2d 773 (March 26, 2009). No ineffective assistance where defense counsel advised defendant not to testify, based on not-credible version of events defendant was telling (about two other unknown perpetrators who actually killed defendant’s girlfriend). Defendant now admits that the story was a lie, and says “that he wanted to tell the truth on the stand and explain that he did not mean to kill [victim] Pegues. … [A]though Hamilton apparently now regrets his decision not to testify, his attorney's advice was based upon misinformation Hamilton provided and under these circumstances, ‘he cannot complain of his own election to follow the reasonable tactical advice of his lawyer.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Todd v. State, 275 Ga.App. 459, 464(4) (620 S.E.2d 666) (2005).” Watkins v. State, 285 Ga. 107, 674 S.E.2d 275 (March 9, 2009). No ineffective assistance where defense counsel told jury in opening statement that defendant would testify, but then made strategic decision for defendant not to testify because “he believed the State had failed to carry its burden.” “‘Defense counsel is given wide latitude in making opening statements and closing arguments. This Court will not, with benefit of hindsight, second-guess defense trial strategies therein. Absent a strong showing that counsel's actions were not reasonable, we will presume that these strategies were not deficient.’ Muller v. State, 284 Ga. 70(3) (663 S.E.2d 206) (2008). The decision not to present [defendant’s] testimony was a reasonable strategic decision in light of counsel's assessment of the case at the close of the State's case and, consequently, cannot support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Id. (counsel was not deficient when he did not present certain evidence and advised client not to testify when he believed the State failed to meet its burden).” Muller v. State, 284 Ga. 70, 663 S.E.2d 206 (June 30, 2008). Counsel’s advice to defendant not to testify did not constitute ineffective assistance. “The transcript of the hearing on the motion for new trial shows that defense counsel’s advice to Muller not to testify was based on the weakness of the State’s case, the trial court’s permission to argue justification without using the word, Muller’s reluctance to testify, the belief that the State’s rebuttal witnesses would be very hostile, and the desire to eliminate the possibility of a voluntary manslaughter instruction. These are sound, strategic reasons for trial counsel’s advice. See Davenport v. State, supra at 174(5); Domingues v. State, 277 Ga. 373, 374(2) (589 S.E.2d 102) (2003); King v. State, 279 Ga.App. 302, 303(1) (630 S.E.2d 905) (2006). The trial transcript reveals that Muller knowingly waived his right to testify, even specifically expressing an understanding that he was thereby giving up a charge on justification.” “Trial counsel’s strategic decision to advise a defendant not to testify does not result in a deficient performance merely because counsel raised self-defense in opening statement and cross-examination, and then did not present any evidence thereof.” Accord, Hood v. State , 292 Ga.App. 584, 666 S.E.2d 674 (July 9, 2008) (no ineffective assistance where counsel advised defendant not to testify based on defendant’s prior felony record, “his argumentative nature, and his quick temper”). Harvey v. State, 284 Ga. 8, 660 S.E.2d 528 (April 21, 2008). No ineffective assistance shown where counsel failed to prepare defendant to testify. “Counsel testified [at motion for new trial] that one of his primary goals at trial was to keep [defendant] off the stand and that he had advised [defendant] not to testify. On the morning of trial, however, [defendant] informed counsel that he intended to testify. Counsel then requested and was granted time to prepare [defendant] for his testimony. Counsel’s failure to prepare [defendant] prior to trial was not deficient performance inasmuch as counsel was not made aware until the morning of trial that [defendant] had decided to testify. ” Accord, Funes v. State , 289 Ga. 793, 716 S.E.2d 183 (October 3, 2011). Icenhour v. State, 290 Ga.App. 461, 659 S.E.2d 858 (March 24, 2008). “‘[W]hether or not to testify in one’s own defense is considered a tactical decision to be made by the defendant himself after consultation with his trial counsel ....’ Burton v. State, 263 Ga. 725, 728(6) (438 S.E.2d 83) (1994). Trial counsel testified at the motion for new trial hearing that she advised Icenhour about the risk associated with testifying and that Icenhour said that he wanted to testify to tell the jury the truth.” Thomas v. State, 282 Ga. 894, 655 S.E.2d 599 (January 8, 2008). No ineffective assistance where trial counsel (and