☢ test - Í

advantage or peril in testifying, so that the defendant can make an informed decision, and that is exactly what happened in this case. … What Price characterizes as ‘talking [him] out of testifying’ was merely his own election to follow the reasonable tactical advice of his lawyer, and there is no basis for complaint. Doctor v. State, 275 Ga. 612, 615(4)(d) (571 S.E.2d 347) (2002).” Disapproved on other grounds, Patel v. State , 282 Ga. 412, 651 S.E.2d 55 (September 24, 2007). Accord, King v. State , 279 Ga.App. 311, 630 S.E.2d 905 (May 11, 2006); Stroud v. State , 284 Ga.App. 604, 644 S.E.2d 467 (March 28, 2007); Burnette v. State , 291 Ga.App. 504, 662 S.E.2d 272 (May 13, 2008) (physical precedent only); Lockheart v. State , 284 Ga. 78, 663 S.E.2d 213 (June 30, 2008). Turpin v. Curtis, 278 Ga. 698, 606 S.E.2d 244 (November 22, 2004). Defendant alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney didn’t tell him he didn’t have to testify. Held, grant of defendant’s habeas petition reversed because defendant showed no prejudice. Counsel’s failure to tell defendant of his right to testify or his right to remain silent is not one of the few instances where prejudice may be presumed. Mathis v. State, 265 Ga.App. 541, 594 S.E.2d 737 (February 11, 2004). “No error occurred in trial counsel’s failure to call defendant to testify. While a criminal defendant has a fundamental right to testify, ‘the decision whether to testify lies solely with the defendant after full consultation with counsel,’ [cit.].” Trial court conducted excellent inquiry on record, insuring that defendant understood his rights relating to testimony at trial. Accord, Goodwin v. State , 320 Ga.App. 224, 739 S.E.2d 712 (March 11, 2013); New v. State , 327 Ga.App. 87, 755 S.E.2d 568 (March 27, 2014). Rowe v. State, 244 Ga.App. 654, 538 S.E.2d 452 (June 27, 2000). Child molestation and related convictions affirmed; counsel wasn’t “ineffective because he did not prevent [defendant] from testifying.” “A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to testify. See, e.g., Mobley v. State, 264 Ga. 854, 855–856(2), 452 S.E.2d 500 (1995). And the decision whether to testify lies solely with the defendant after full consultation with counsel. Washington v. State, 238 Ga.App. 561, 562(2)(d), 519 S.E.2d 234 (1999). Trial counsel unequivocally testified that he advised Rowe not to testify but that Rowe insisted on doing so. Indeed, as argued by the State, under the circumstances of this case, trial counsel likely would have been ineffective had he prevented Rowe from testifying.” Ward v. State, 242 Ga.App. 246, 529 S.E.2d 378 (February 4, 2000). Burglary conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance of counsel despite defendant’s “claim that his counsel failed to properly prepare him to testify. During the trial, Ward created an ethical dilemma for his lawyer when he spontaneously decided to deny writing any part of the confession despite having admitted to his lawyer that he did write portions of it. Counsel explained to the court that he wanted no part in suborning perjury. Outside the presence of the jury and the prosecutor, Ward admitted that what he was telling the jury and what he had previously told his counsel differed. No rule of law requires or permits an attorney to assist in the commission of a crime. There is no right, constitutional or otherwise, for a defendant to use false evidence. Stephenson v. State, 206 Ga.App. 273, 275, 424 S.E.2d 816 (1992). The right to counsel, including the right to effective assistance of counsel, does not include cooperation in planned perjury. Id.” Wooten v. State, 240 Ga.App. 725, 524 S.E.2d 776 (November 8, 1999). Convictions for robbery, false name, and driving on suspended license affirmed; no ineffective assistance based on failure to advise defendant of his right to testify. Counsel “remembered advising Wooten not to testify because he felt Wooten ‘would blurt out something to open the door to his priors.’ At a minimum, the advice inherently contained the message that Wooten had a right to testify. Counsel's advice against putting Wooten on the stand was tactical and does not reach the level of deficient performance. Accord Quinn v. State, 222 Ga.App. 423, 424(2)(a), 474 S.E.2d 297 (1996).” Williams v. State, 239 Ga.App. 598, 521 S.E.2d 650 (August 12, 1999). Counsel’s advice to defendant “not to testify because of Williams' background and because he perceived Williams' version to lack credibility … is a classic example of trial strategy and tactics that do not fall outside the wide range of reasonable professional conduct. Jenkins v. State, 268 Ga. 468, 473(10), 491 S.E.2d 54 (1997); Etheridge v. State, 228 Ga.App. 788, 790(2), 492 S.E.2d 755 (1997); 652 see Bridges v. State, 205 Ga.App. 664, 666(2), 423 S.E.2d 293 (1992).” Accord, Calhoun v. State , 327 Ga.App. 683, 761 S.E.2d 91 (June 23, 2014). 37. DEMURRER, FILING/FAILURE TO FILE New case! Everhart v. State, A16A0652, ___ Ga.App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 3064872 (May 25, 2016). Child cruelty conviction reversed; counsel was ineffective for failing to file general demurrer to indictment. Charge that defendant failed to provide necessary sustenance to child by not obtaining medical care after injury failed to state an offense under the law. 1. “ Everhart argues that timely medical care does not qualify as ‘necessary sustenance’ under the