☢ test - Í

Navarro v. State, 279 Ga.App. 311, 630 S.E.2d 893 (May 11, 2006). Aggravated assault and related convictions affirmed. “Navarro claims that his attorney was ineffective for failing to properly investigate the case. Specifically, he points to his attorney’s failure to obtain a surveillance video , which he suggests would have been exculpatory. However, one witness suggested that the surveillance video did not capture the incident, and Navarro did not tender the tape at the hearing on his motion for new trial. Under these circumstances, Navarro has not shown that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to view the surveillance tape or tender it into evidence. Moreover, the record demonstrates that Navarro’s trial counsel met with Navarro, filed several pre-trial motions, including a motion to suppress and a motion for speedy trial, and hired a Spanish-speaking investigator, who interviewed family members. Thus, this is not a case in which Navarro’s attorney did nothing to prepare for trial. Navarro’s contention that his attorney could have done more to aid in his defense is mere speculation, which is insufficient to sustain an ineffectiveness claim. See Hampton v. State, 279 Ga. 625, 628(5) (619 S.E.2d 616) (2005).” Robertson v. State, 278 Ga.App. 376, 629 S.E.2d 79 (March 23, 2006). Rape and related convictions affirmed. No ineffective assistance; counsel’s decision not to complain about lack of witness contact information was strategic decision – defense counsel correctly believed that prosecutor would make the mistake of trying to introduce the similar transaction through a certified copy of the conviction, without calling the victim. Hart v. State, 272 Ga.App. 754, 613 S.E.2d 107 (February 28, 2005). Felony obstruction and related convictions affirmed. “If the attorneys did receive informal discovery, there may have been no need to file formal discovery motions. See Harris v. State, 265 Ga.App. 876(1)(a) (595 S.E.2d 683) (2004).” Gibbs v. State, 270 Ga.App. 56, 606 S.E.2d 83 (October 13, 2004). Armed robbery and related convictions reversed. “ Failure to comply with reciprocal discovery obligations which results in the loss of an opportunity to introduce exculpatory evidence may constitute deficient performance. Whether trial counsel chose to introduce documents he had in his file would, in itself, be a matter of trial tactics and strategy. But trial counsel in this case precluded himself from using the documents – if, during the trial, he realized he needed them – because he failed to comply with the reciprocal discovery rules. We must ask, not only whether any reasonable trial counsel might have decided not to introduce the dental records, but also whether any reasonable trial counsel would have, as trial strategy, failed to protect his opportunity to use the records. Trial counsel’s performance was deficient because he failed to disclose the exculpatory documentary evidence after opting in to reciprocal discovery, not simply because he failed to use the evidence.” Evidence here was dental records showing that defendant got his gold teeth before the crime in question, where the defense was mistaken identity and the victim positively identified defendant as the robber but testified that the robber had no gold teeth. Reasonable probability exists that outcome of the trial would have been different but for counsel’s ineffective assistance; conviction reversed. Distinguished, Green (November 28, 2006), above. Harris v. State, 265 Ga.App. 876, 595 S.E.2d 683 (February 27, 2004). Robbery by force conviction affirmed. “Harris admits that his trial attorney ‘did investigate and speak with various witnesses, [but] he did not file either pretrial discovery or a pretrial motion to suppress the initial stop and seizure of the defendant [.]’ However, the State had an ‘open file’ policy, making a formal request for pretrial discovery unnecessary. Harris’ trial attorney testified at the motion for new trial hearing that he had received a copy of all of the documents in the State’s file. Harris fails to state what more would have been obtained had discovery motions been filed. [Cit.]” Thus, no ineffective assistance of counsel shown. Conger v. State, 245 Ga.App. 399, 537 S.E.2d 798 (July 28, 2000). Aggravated child molestation conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance shown. “Conger … complains that his counsel failed to timely view and inform him of the State's videotape of a doctor's interview with the child. Here, counsel had a detailed summary of the contents of the tape some time before trial and also viewed the tape just before trial. Failure to watch a videotaped statement until shortly before trial is not ineffective assistance, particularly where the trial counsel had detailed information as to its contents. See Gentry v. State, 235 Ga.App. 328, 330–331(4), 508 S.E.2d 671 (1998). And assuming that it were deficient performance for trial counsel not to inform Conger of the videotape, Conger's general argument that had he known of the videotape he may have made better and more informed decisions does not meet his burden of showing prejudice. See Evans v. State, 233 Ga.App. 879, 880(2), 506 S.E.2d 169 (1998).” Moody v. State , 244 Ga.App. 214, 534 S.E.2d 912 (May 26, 2000). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance shown based on failure to file discovery motions, “because counsel had essentially seen the State's entire case at the [prior probation] revocation hearing. See Robinson v. State, 210 Ga.App. 278, 279-280(3), 435 S.E.2d 718 (1993) (failure to file discovery motions not harmful where defense had access to the State's file via