☢ test - Í

Dulcio v. State, 292 Ga. 645, 740 S.E.2d 574 (March 25, 2013). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance in “failing to procure a handwriting expert to rebut the State's evidence of certain incriminating ‘jailhouse’ letters allegedly written by him to [co-conspirator] Woods. Counsel testified that he contemplated hiring a handwriting expert for the letters, but after showing a letter to Dulcio and consulting with other attorneys, the strategic decision was made not to do so; counsel's opinion was that such an expert would not have been helpful to Dulcio's defense in that it would not have shown that the letters were not written by Dulcio. Such a matter of trial strategy, if reasonable, cannot be the basis of a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Thomas v. State, 284 Ga. 647, 650 (3) (b) (670 S.E.2d 421) (2008). And, under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the decision to forego securing a handwriting expert to examine the letters was unreasonable. Id.” Accord, Bryant v. State , 293 Ga. 754, 749 S.E.2d 697 (October 7, 2013) (counsel consulted DNA expert, whose conclusions matched State’s expert); Miller v. State , 295 Ga. 769, 764 S.E.2d 135 (October 6, 2014) (“Counsel is not ineffective for failing to call an expert witness whose testimony would have been cumulative of other evidence presented in the trial.”). Carter v. State, 320 Ga.App. 454, 740 S.E.2d 195 (March 18, 2013). Child molestation conviction affirmed (although others reversed for lack of evidence of venue ); no ineffective assistance in failing to obtain expert witness on child forensic interview techniques. “Carter's trial counsel testified that he made the strategic decision not to call an expert in this case based on his consideration of the victim's age, the facts of the case and the forensic interview itself, with some small consideration given to the financial resources of Carter's family. The attorney had won a child molestation case a few months before Carter's trial without the benefit of an expert, and based upon his 40 years of experience practicing law and his familiarity with Clayton County jurors, he did not think that the facts of Carter's case warranted expert testimony. He viewed the primary issue with the forensic interview as coming down ‘to suggestibility or bolstering the testimony,’ which he addressed through cross-examination and argument. He did not think an expert was needed to present the defense. He also dealt with the issue of A.W.'s dislike of Carter and her possible motive for fabrication, which he saw as ‘a core piece of the defense,’ in the same manner. He viewed these issues as a matter of common sense for the jury, who ‘can determine whether it looks like [forensic interviewers are] bolstering or they're leading or whatever else.’” Brown v. State, 292 Ga. 454, 738 S.E.2d 591 (February 18, 2013). Murder conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failure to call a medical expert. Although defendant presented an expert at motion for new trial hearing, who testified that child victim’s injuries could have resulted from an accidental fall, “trial counsel testified that during her investigation of the case, she consulted with a trauma nurse and a physician, both of whom, after reviewing the medical evidence, expressed doubts about the theory that Garry's initial injury could have resulted from an accidental fall from a sofa. As a result, trial counsel had concerns about finding a credible medical expert who would support that theory and decided instead to challenge the State's expert evidence through cross-examination. … ‘How to deal with the presentation of an expert witness by the opposing side, including whether to present counter expert testimony, to rely upon cross- examination, to forego cross-examination and/or to forego development of certain expert opinion, is a matter of trial strategy which, if reasonable, cannot be the basis for a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim.’ Phillips v. State, 285 Ga. 213, 222–223 (675 S.E.2d 1) (2009) (citation omitted). Based on trial counsel's testimony regarding her pre-trial consultations with a trauma nurse and a physician, both of whom discounted the suggested alternative explanation for the victim's initial brain injury, counsel's strategic decision not to continue hunting for a defense expert, but instead to challenge the State's experts on cross-examination, while also presenting a robust defense to other aspects of the State's case, was not unreasonable and did not constitute deficient performance.” Accord, Oliver v. State , 324 Ga.App. 53, 748 S.E.2d 510 (September 27, 2013); Horne v. State , 333 Ga.App. 353, 773 S.E.2d 467 (June 23, 2015); Perdue v. State , S16A0296, ___ Ga. ___, 785 S.E.2d 291, 2016 WL 1294999 (April 4, 2016). Moore v. State, 319 Ga.App. 766, 738 S.E.2d 348 (February 14, 2013). Child cruelty convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance in deciding not to seek “independent medical expert to ‘establish the method used to create K.M.'s scars and establish their longevity.’” Counsel decided, not unreasonably, that hiring such an expert was unnecessary inasmuch as “the State's expert couldn't identify the time periods with any certainty as to when these injuries were—supposedly had happened.” Farris v. State, 290 Ga. 323, 720 S.E.2d 604 (January 9, 2012). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance shown based on failure to present expert testimony, as defendant failed to show that such testimony would have been helpful. “At the hearing on the motion for new trial, appellant presented no evidence to support his theory that an independent expert could have narrowed the time of death to a time frame shorter than that which the jury could deduce from the evidence presented. … [A]ppellant did not overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel's conduct falls