☢ test - Í

questions, violated the rule set forth in Doyle. ” Compare McClain (February 28, 2007), above (failure to object to improper evidence on defendant’s silence not ineffective because based on strategic decision not to emphasize the evidence). Accord, Crawford v. State , 294 Ga.App. 711, 670 S.E.2d 185 (November 19, 2008) (failure to object to comment on defendant’s silence was deficient, but reversal not required by single gratuitous reference). Lloyd v. State, 280 Ga. 187, 625 S.E.2d 771 (January 17, 2006). Counsel’s failure to object to improper argument was deficient, but did not require reversal because “Lloyd cannot show that a mistrial was required. Whether to grant a mistrial for improper argument is a matter largely within the trial court’s discretion. Pace v. State, 271 Ga. 829, 841(27) (524 S.E.2d 490) (1999). The trial court has other options, including the rebuke of counsel and providing curative instructions. See OCGA § 17-8-75 [footnote omitted]. Moreover, even when an objection to improper argument is sustained but a mistrial is denied, other action, including the giving of curative instructions, is not mandatory. Foshee v. State, 256 Ga. 555, 556(1) (350 S.E.2d 416) (1986). In any event, in this case it would not have been reversible error for the trial court to refuse a mistrial because the evidence of Lloyd’s guilt was overwhelming, and it is highly probable that any improper argument did not contribute to the verdicts.” Vincent v. State, 276 Ga.App. 415, 623 S.E.2d 255 (November 17, 2005). Defense counsel’s strategic decision to forego Bruton objection to honor “her client’s desire to be tried with the other two defendants and to present a unified front” did not amount to ineffective assistance, even though “[i]t would appear that this strategy may have backfired.” Kalb v. State, 276 Ga.App. 394, 623 S.E.2d 230 (November 16, 2005). Convictions for DUI, open container, habitual violator, and other traffic offenses reversed based on ineffective assistance of counsel; counsel should have objected to defendant’s entire driving history being admitted into evidence . “[W]e can conceive of no reasonable basis for not objecting to this record of all of Kalb’s traffic offenses. At the motion for new trial hearing Kalb’s defense counsel testified that he did not object to a document consisting of six pages of Kalb’s traffic offenses, showing 22 separate traffic offenses, because he ‘didn’t realize the driving history was going to go out and I didn’t know that it had gone.’” “Kalb’s entire driving record is inadmissible … unless he put his character in issue or the record was material to the offenses for which he was charged. Ragan v. State, 264 Ga. 190, 191-192(1), 442 S.E.2d 750 (1994). The State has offered no basis for asserting that this record was admissible in this case and we perceive none.” Accord, Hopkins v. State , 283 Ga.App. 654, 642 S.E.2d 356 (February 21, 2007) (No prejudice, but “tendering the [police] report into evidence, knowing that it contained the otherwise inadmissible numerical result of the alcosensor test, fell below the standard of reasonable professional conduct. [Cit.]”). Henry v. State, 279 Ga. 615, 619 S.E.2d 609 (September 19, 2005). “‘ “Failure to make a meritless objection cannot be evidence of ineffective assistance.” [Cit.]’ Moore v. State, 278 Ga. 397, 401(2)(e) (603 S.E.2d 228) (2004). See also Williams v. State, 276 Ga. 384, 387(5) (578 S.E.2d 858) (2003).” Accord, many cases including Copeland v. State , 281 Ga.App. 11, 635 S.E.2d 283 (August 7, 2006); Thompson v. State , 281 Ga.App. 627, 636 S.E.2d 779 (September 20, 2006) (failure “to file a claim of misconduct against the prosecuting attorney” for discovery violation where record is clear attorney did not willfully withhold evidence); Fields v. State , 281 Ga.App. 733, 637 S.E.2d 136 (October 4, 2006); Jackson v. State , 288 Ga.App. 432, 654 S.E.2d 232 (November 15, 2007); Wallace v. State , 335 Ga.App. 232, 779 S.E.2d 130 (November 16, 2015). Reynolds v. State, 269 Ga.App. 268, 603 S.E.2d 779 (August 26, 2004). Rape and related convictions affirmed. “[T]rial counsel was not ineffective by failing to object to ‘excessive’ leading questions, because ‘[d]ecisions as to whether to interpose certain objections fall within the realm of trial tactics and strategy and usually provide no basis for reversal of a conviction [cit.],’ nor do they amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. [Cit.] Moreover, it appears that a majority of the leading questions here were asked to establish routine facts, the answers to which were either obvious or answered by other witnesses.” Accord, many cases including Powell v. State , 272 Ga.App. 628, 612 S.E.2d 916 (March 31, 2005) (“‘It is well established that the decision of whether to interpose certain objections is a matter of trial strategy and tactics.’ Gosnell v. State, 247 Ga.App. 508, 511(3) (544 S.E.2d 477) (2001).”); Ross v. State , 281 Ga.App. 891, 637 S.E.2d 491 (October 16, 2006); Williams v. State , 282 Ga. 561, 651 S.E.2d 674 (September 24, 2007); Jackson v. State , 288 Ga.App. 432, 654 S.E.2d 232 (November 15, 2007) (decision not to object to some questions bolstering victim’s credibility); Smith v. State , 294 Ga.App. 692, 670 S.E.2d 191 (November 19, 2008) (decision not to object to some leading questions so as not to “create resentment” among jurors in light of sympathetic victim); Sledge v. State , 312 Ga.App. 97, 717 S.E.2d 682 (October 18, 2011); Young v. State , 328 Ga.App. 857, 763 S.E.2d 137 (August 20, 2014) (no ineffective assistance in failing to object to “leading questions to most of the State's witnesses.”).