☢ test - Í

Thompson and Hines dissent, would find that the trial court’s implicit finding that no interpreter was needed was adequately supported by the record, without need for express findings on the record. Distinguished, Pineda (February 28, 2011), above. Hung v. State, 284 Ga. 796, 671 S.E.2d 811 (January 12, 2009). No ineffective assistance for failure to request separate interpreters for two non-English-speaking co-defendants. “[D]efendant points out that he and [co-defendant] Le each wore headsets to listen to a simultaneous translation provided by a single interpreter. Continuing the argument, defendant maintains that the headset interfered with his ability to communicate with trial counsel during the proceedings. However, nothing in the record demonstrates that defendant's rights were impinged by the use of a single interpreter. See People v. Tomas, 484 N.E.2d 341, 343 (Ill.App., 1985) (use of single interpreter for defendants was sufficient to safeguard right to fair trial).” Distinguishing California cases based on state constitutional provision. Maldonado v. State, 284 Ga.App. 26, 643 S.E.2d 316 (March 7, 2007). “[Co-defendant] Martinez … argues that his counsel was ineffective for … not providing a Spanish interpreter during the[ir] meetings. … Martinez’s counsel … testified that, although he did not bring a certified interpreter with him, Martinez’s wife or Maldonado were always there to translate. Martinez never indicated that they were having trouble communicating and his counsel never had any reason to believe that their conversations were not being accurately translated. Accordingly, Martinez has failed to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient in this regard.” Hersi v. State, 257 Ga.App. 63, 570 S.E.2d 365 (August 16, 2002). Counsel used an official interpreter for defendant’s testimony but not for defendant’s benefit throughout the trial. Held, counsel not ineffective for failing to obtain an interpreter for his client where the “absence of an official interpreter other than his brother clearly did not result in a denial of his right to meaningfully participate in the proceedings against him.... [and there is no] specific harm that befell [defendant] due to his alleged failure to understand the proceedings.” Accord, Ling (November 3, 2009), above. Avila-Nunez v. State, 237 Ga.App. 649, 516 S.E.2d 335 (April 13, 1999). “Avila-Nunez failed to satisfy her burden of showing prejudice arising from trial counsel’s failure to inquire into the interpreter’s qualifications before trial. See Turpin v. Mobley, 269 Ga. 635, 638(3), 502 S.E.2d 458 (1998). Her husband’s bilingual counsel testified that although the translation during trial was ‘somewhat loose,’ none of the looseness involved material aspects of the case. He also testified that Avila-Nunez was fairly conversant in English. Moreover, the record shows that either he or trial counsel brought the issue to the trial court’s attention and a different translator was then used.” 58. JACKSON-DENNO HEARING, FAILURE TO SEEK Freeman v. State, 328 Ga.App. 756, 760 S.E.2d 708 (July 16, 2014). Convictions for burglary and attempted murder affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failing to present closing argument at end of Jackson-Denno hearing. “The transcript shows that Freeman's trial counsel had vigorously cross-examined the State's witness with probative and leading questions, revealing inconsistencies and challenging their answers. Trial counsel's questioning laid a clear foundation to support his theory that Freeman's statements were the product of improper interrogation, and he was not sufficiently Mirandized. Trial counsel's approach is in line with the common and reasonable tactic to perfect the record and not use further court time to make an argument that has become obvious through counsel's questioning.” Williams v. State, 293 Ga.App. 193, 666 S.E.2d 703 (July 18, 2008). No ineffective assistance where counsel waived Jackson-Denno hearing and allowed admission of defendant’s prior statements, which admitted acts but were consistent with the defense theory of the case. Felton v. State, 283 Ga. 242, 657 S.E.2d 850 (February 25, 2008). No ineffective assistance where counsel waived Jackson-Denno hearing and stipulated to admission of defendant’s statement; counsel made strategic decision to get defendant’s version of events into evidence without exposing defendant to cross-examination. “It was not unreasonable for counsel to favor the admission of Felton’s statement over introducing its content through Felton’s own testimony, thus subjecting him to cross-examination, nor was it unreasonable for counsel to favor the introduction of the statement rather than have Felton’s version of events not be presented to the jury at all.” Daly v. State, 285 Ga.App. 808, 648 S.E.2d 90 (May 30, 2007). “Daly asserts that his trial counsel should have demanded a Jackson-Denno hearing to determine the voluntariness of his statement. But Daly has not shown how a hearing would have altered the outcome of his trial. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, Daly denied making the statement, but he failed to introduce any evidence to suggest that his statement was involuntary. Accordingly, this contention fails. See