☢ test - Í

the context of his perspective at the time of the interrogations, we cannot conclude that he rendered ineffective assistance in permitting Woods to cooperate in the interrogations and searches. See Bowley v. State, 261 Ga. 278, 281(4) (404 S.E.2d 97) (1991). The fact that present counsel might have pursued a different strategic course does not render Tomlinson's strategy unreasonable. Freeman v. State, 284 Ga. 830, 835(4) (672 S.E.2d 644) (2009). Nor has ineffective assistance of counsel been shown in counsel's failure to investigate further Woods's mental state before proceeding with the interrogations. Assuming that the facts known to Tomlinson gave a basis for doing so and that his performance was deficient, ‘it is not enough to show merely that counsel unreasonably failed to inquire into [Woods's] mental state—he must show a [reasonable probability] that such an evaluation would have affected the outcome at trial.’ Devega v. State, 286 Ga. 448, 450(4)(a) (689 S.E.2d 293) (2010) (Citations and punctuation omitted.) No evidence was presented that Woods was incapable of freely and voluntarily deciding to cooperate with law enforcement officers and waiving his right to remain silent, and there is no showing that further investigation on Tomlinson's part would have resulted in a different decision as to whether to cooperate with the investigation.” “We note that it does not appear that the United States Supreme Court has recognized a right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. See Sweeney v. Carter, 361 F.3d 327, 333(IV) (7 th Cir., 2004). We also assume, without deciding, that it was appropriate for Woods to raise this ineffective assistance claim in a pre- trial motion , before there was an outcome of the trial against which to assess any prejudice. But see Sosniak v. State, 287 Ga. 279, 287(1)(B)(n.3) (695 S.E.2d 604) (2010).” Accord, Perkins v. State , 328 Ga.App. 508, 759 S.E.2d 626 (June 24, 2014) (even if trial counsel was deficient for failure to investigate whether defendant had a mental illness defense, “[b]ecause Perkins produced no expert testimony at the motion for new trial showing that a psychological evaluation would have aided an insanity defense, his ineffective assistance claim rests on speculation and fails for lack of demonstrated prejudice.”); Crapps v. State , 329 Ga.App. 820, 766 S.E.2d 178 (November 20, 2014). Womack v. State, 317 Ga.App. 496, 731 S.E.2d 387 (August 29, 2012). Convictions for rape and related offenses affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failure “to obtain a pre-trial psychiatric evaluation regarding his competency and level of criminal responsibility at the time of the offenses,” given court-ordered evaluation finding him competent. Although defendant presented two experts who evaluated him after trial and “expressed serious reservations regarding Womack's competency to stand trial,” trial court was entitled to rely on the prior evaluation in finding no ineffective assistance. Citing “Page v. State, 313 Ga.App. 691, 695(2) (722 S.E.2d 408) (2012) (‘The fact that a psychiatric report was issued after trial does not demonstrate that counsel performed deficiently at the time of trial.’).” Hambrick v. Brannen, 289 Ga. 682, 715 S.E.2d 89 (September 12, 2011). In defendant’s prosecution for family violence battery and related offenses, habeas court erred in granting petition based on ineffective assistance. Petitioner showed neither deficient representation nor prejudice. Deficient representation. Distinguishing Martin v. Barrett, 279 Ga. 593, 619 S.E.2d 656 (2005), where counsel, through inattention and not as a strategic decision, made no investigation into defendant’s mental health though counsel knew defendant had previously been hospitalized for mental illness. Here, “counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue an insanity defense based upon his prior experience, on Brannen's assurance and the attorney's perception that Brannen understood the revocation proceedings, and on an agreement with the State that it would ‘dead docket’ the new felony charges in exchange for Brannen not contesting the probation revocation. Moreover, Brannen expressed his paramount concern which was his desire to get into a facility where he could get treatment, and Brannen, his parents, and counsel believed that the surest route to such treatment was to admit the allegations in the probation revocation and have mental health treatment be an integral part of Brannen's sentence. Finally, counsel spoke with Brannen, Brannen's parents, and doctors before deciding not to request a psychiatric evaluation of Brannen.” Accord, Arnold (January 7, 2013), above. Prejudice. “Brannen did not offer any evidence to establish prejudice. Nevertheless, the habeas court summarily concluded that the outcome might have been different had counsel investigated Brannen's mental health.” Again distinguishing Martin , where petitioner presented expert evidence. “Brannen presented no evidence to support his claim of prejudice; the habeas court simply speculated that such information existed. Most significantly, Brannen presented no expert testimony showing what an evaluation could have revealed which would have been favorable to a defense to the revocation had counsel requested one. Speculation will not satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland. Whitus v. State, 287 Ga. 801, 805(2), 700 S.E.2d 377 (2010).” Accord, Valentine v. State , 293 Ga. 533, 748 S.E.2d 437 (September 9, 2013). State v. Abernathy, 289 Ga. 603, 715 S.E.2d 48 (July 5, 2011). In defendant’s murder prosecution, trial court properly held that defendant received no ineffective assistance by counsel “failing to investigate and present evidence in support of a mental health defense.” Despite defendant’s extensive history of psychiatric treatment, “‘[m]ental abnormality, unless it amounts to insanity, is not a defense to a crime.’ Wallace v. State , 248 Ga. 255, 262(8) (282 S.E.2d 325) (1981). Compare Hall v. McPherson , 284 Ga. 219 (663 S.E.2d 659) (2008) (failure to present mental health evidence