☢ test - Í

Pernice attack Coleman and was himself struck on the head, causing him to collapse onto the steering wheel. Fearing he was going to be struck again, Jackson retrieved his gun from under the front seat, stuck it out the door of the Jeep Cherokee, and fired, causing Sang Duk Lee to disappear from Jackson's sight. Jackson and Coleman then drove away from the gas station. Jackson's testimony that he remained in the vehicle and fired his weapon through the vehicle's open door or window at someone who had struck him while he was in the vehicle and who he believed was preparing to strike him again was the ‘slight evidence’ necessary to authorize the trial court giving a jury charge on the defense of habitation upon request.” Gonzales v. State, 298 Ga.App. 821, 681 S.E.2d 248 (July 9, 2009). No ineffective assistance where trial counsel recommended that defendant not seek a charge on false imprisonment as a lesser-included offense to kidnapping; trial counsel testified that he thought the kidnapping charge was winnable, but that defendant would surely be convicted of false imprisonment at trial. After consultation, defendant agreed with counsel’s strategy. “‘With the benefit of hindsight, it would appear that this strategy may have backfired. But that is not to say that it was ineffective. Informed strategic decisions do not amount to inadequacy under Strickland. ’ (Punctuation and citation omitted.) Muller v. State, 284 Ga. 70, 73-74(3) (663 S.E.2d 206) (2008).” Scott v. State, 298 Ga.App. 376, 680 S.E.2d 482 (June 16, 2009). No ineffective assistance where defense counsel failed to seek jury charge on witness leniency: “When asked why he did not request a charge on leniency, trial counsel testified that he ‘hammered the point pretty clearly’ when he examined Spooner, believing that the jury understood her incentive to enter into a plea bargain with the State in order to avoid jail time. Given the foregoing and the trial court's charge on credibility of the witnesses, trial counsel's decision not to request a charge on leniency was a reasonable trial tactic.” Harvill v. State, 296 Ga.App. 453, 674 S.E.2d 659 (March 5, 2009). No ineffective assistance from failure to object to trial court’s jury charge on lesser-included offense (stalking as lesser-included offense to aggravated stalking); “a trial court is authorized to charge on a lesser-included offense on its on volition and in its discretion. … Accordingly, Harvill cannot show ineffective assistance for failure to object to the charge on the lesser-included offense.” Phillips v. State, 285 Ga. 213, 675 S.E.2d 1 (February 9, 2009). No ineffective assistance where defense counsel chose not to seek limiting instruction on use of defendant’s prior convictions for impeachment only. “At the hearing on the motion for new trial, trial counsel testified he did not request a limiting instruction because a limiting instruction ‘may bring attention’ to evidence the jury had heard. Where trial counsel testifies that he chose not to seek a limiting instruction because he did not wish to draw attention to the prior convictions, the omission was trial strategy and not evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel. Jones v. State, 280 Ga. 205(2b) (625 S.E.2d 1) (2005). But see Starling v. State, 285 Ga.App. 474 (646 S.E.2d 695) (2007) (trial counsel's failure to obtain a limiting instruction did not fall within the range of reasonable professional conduct).” Accord, Ford v. State , 290 Ga. 45, 717 S.E.2d 464 (November 7, 2011); Sims v. State , 317 Ga.App. 420, 731 S.E.2d 105 (August 14, 2012). Greene v. State, 295 Ga.App. 803, 673 S.E.2d 292 (January 30, 2009). No ineffective assistance where counsel requested charges on lesser included offenses. “Given that the requested charge permitted the jury to convict Greene of two misdemeanors, rather than two felonies, the decision to request it was neither unreasonable nor incompetent. To the contrary, this charge represents an example of trial counsel's effectiveness. Wilburn v. State, 278 Ga.App. 76, 78 (20(b) (628 S.E.2d 174) (2006).” Battise v. State, 295 Ga.App. 833, 673 S.E.2d 262 (January 15, 2009). “Battise claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request that the trial court instruct the jury on eyewitness identification. Assuming arguendo, that trial counsel's failure to request such an instruction was deficient, Battise cannot show that his trial counsel's omission caused prejudice. The trial court charged the jury on the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses, and impeachment of witnesses. ‘Thus, the jury was instructed on the general principles of law underlying a defense of misidentification.’ Springs v. Seese, 274 Ga. 659, 662(3) (558 S.E.2d 710) (2002).” Smith v. State, 294 Ga.App. 692, 670 S.E.2d 191 (November 19, 2008). Defense counsel was deficient in not requesting a charge on sodomy as a lesser-included offense to aggravated sodomy. Defense counsel testified “that he did not request such a charge on sodomy because he believed that sodomy between two consenting adults had been struck down” Powell v. State , 270 Ga. 327, 510 S.E.2d 18 (2008). Powell , however, did not extend the right to privacy to