☢ test - Í

S.E.2d 184) (2001).” Second, trial counsel was assisted by a seasoned criminal attorney.” No deficient performance shown here. Accord, Simmons v. State , 291 Ga. 705, 733 S.E.2d 280 (October 15, 2012) (three years’ experience, 16 trials, plus experienced co-counsel). Cooper v. State, 281 Ga. 760, 642 S.E.2d 817 (March 26, 2007). “ Lack of experience alone cannot constitute grounds for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Stephens v. State, 265 Ga. 120(2) (453 S.E.2d 443) (1995). Furthermore, the transcript reveals that the trial court questioned [defendant] and obtained his express agreement on the record that he was ‘comfortable’ with the decision to allow co-counsel to handle closing. See Brown v. State, 225 Ga.App. 49(1)(b) (483 S.E.2d 318) (1997) (party cannot complain of decision made by defense counsel in which he participated fully).” 56. INSANITY/MENTAL ILLNESS/MENTAL RETARDATION DEFENSE, FAILURE TO PRESENT State v. Garland, 298 Ga. 482, 781 S.E.2d 787 (January 19, 2016). Following conviction for sexual battery, habeas court properly granted relief based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. State concedes that appellate counsel was deficient, but argues no prejudice. Deficient performance: counsel, without defendant’s knowledge or consent, “in order to secure Garland’s release from confinement, … reached an agreement with the State which required him to withdraw the motion for new trial, and in exchange, Garland would be returned to probation to be served in his home state of Texas.” Defendant testified at habeas hearing that he never would have agreed to waive this; he also presented uncontradicted expert testimony that he was both insane at the time of the crime and incompetent at the time of his trial. Held, this evidence was sufficient to establish prejudice. “The prejudicial effects of appellate counsel’s failure to advise and consult with Garland are heightened because of the uncontradicted evidence of Garland’s lack of competence and diminished mental condition, factors which were neither investigated by trial counsel nor presented to the trial court on motion for new trial and which clearly call into question the fairness of his trial.” Torres v. State, 297 Ga. 32, 771 S.E.2d 894 (April 20, 2015). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance based on failure to pursue “a mental health defense.” Defendant contends that counsel should have pursued a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity based on an independent psych eval which concluded that defendant was “not criminally responsible,” but counsel chose not to do so for several reasons: the eval was contradicted by more thorough state evaluations; the independent evaluation was based on borderline retardation, not compulsion or inability to tell right from wrong; and the evaluations “included reference to Torres's voluntary drug use as causing any delusions,” which would undercut any mental health defense. “What is more, an insanity defense, or indeed, any mental health defense would have necessitated Torres admitting to committing the criminal acts; he could not simultaneously assert such a defense and a credible defense that he was not the perpetrator. Boykins v. State, 294 Ga. 277, 279(2), 751 S.E.2d 811 (2013).” Lemery v. State, 330 Ga.App. 623, 768 S.E.2d 800 (February 9, 2015). Convictions for sex trafficking and related offenses affirmed. No ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to seek funds for independent psychiatric examination, after state evaluation showed defendant was competent to stand trial. “Lemery has not shown that his counsel unreasonably relied on the psychological evaluation or that her efforts on the eve of trial constituted deficient performance. Moreover, Lemery has presented no evidence from which the court could infer that an independent evaluation would have yielded conclusions that were contrary to those of the first evaluation.” Humphrey v. Walker, 294 Ga. 855, 757 S.E.2d 68 (March 28, 2014). Following capital murder conviction, habeas court properly granted petition, finding that trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to have defendant evaluated for competence to stand trial. 1. Trial counsel “made some effort to procure an evaluation of his mental health, making arrangements for Walker to be examined by a psychologist. But when Walker refused to submit to be examined, counsel abandoned altogether their efforts to have his mental health professionally evaluated, without consulting with the psychologist about feasible alternatives to a personal examination. If counsel had so consulted with the psychologist, they would have learned that he could render an opinion about the mental health of their client even without Walker submitting to an examination. And from evidence that was known or otherwise available to counsel, the psychologist would have concluded that Walker likely was not competent to stand trial. It was unreasonable for counsel to abandon their investigation of Walker's mental health as they did, the habeas court concluded.” “After personally interviewing some of the other witnesses who appeared in the habeas proceedings, reading affidavit testimony of other habeas witnesses, reviewing letters from Walker to various persons and other documentary materials, and observing the testimony at the habeas hearing, Dr. Meck was able to give detailed opinion testimony about Walker's mental state at the time of trial, even without Walker submitting to an examination.” 2. Outcome here not controlled by