☢ test - Í

commercial transactions, as defendant alleged occurred here. “The state's evidence supported a finding that Smith was guilty of aggravated sodomy; Smith's testimony (that the sexual activity was not with force, but with [victim’s] consent and in exchange for money) supported a finding that he was guilty of sodomy. Accordingly, Smith has shown that he would have been entitled to a charge on sodomy had his trial lawyer so requested.” No prejudice, however, in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt. Wesley v. State, 294 Ga.App. 559, 669 S.E.2d 511 (November 14, 2008). No ineffective assistance for failure to file written request for jury charges where “trial counsel's oral requests to charge were considered and substantively ruled upon by the trial court.” Eller v. State, 294 Ga.App. 77, 668 S.E.2d 755 (October 16, 2008). At defendant’s trial for kidnapping and aggravated sodomy, no ineffective assistance for failing to seek charge on lesser-included offense of sodomy. “At the motion for new trial hearing, trial counsel testified that he thought the court's general charges would cover everything. He also testified that he did not think a charge on lesser included offenses would be helpful because ‘in almost every instance when you offer a lesser included at the very least you get a conviction on that, and the Court will heavily sentence on a lesser included, so I didn't see that would have benefitted him. ’ He also explained that his strategy was that the jury would either believe the defense or they would not. We cannot conclude that this strategy met the patently unreasonable standard.” Hood v. State, 292 Ga.App. 584, 666 S.E.2d 674 (July 9, 2008). No ineffective assistance where counsel withdrew charge requests on lesser-included offenses. “‘Decisions on requests to charge involve trial tactics to which we must afford substantial latitude, and “they provide no grounds for reversal unless such tactical decisions are so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen them.”[Cit.]’ Lindo v. State, 278 Ga.App. 228, 238(4)(c) (628 S.E.2d 665) (2006).” Accord, Kay v. State , 306 Ga.App. 666, 703 S.E.2d 108 (October 29, 2010) (in child molestation prosecution, counsel made strategic decision not to request charge on lesser-included offense of sexual battery, which would have been inconsistent with defense theory and defendant’s adamant denial of touching the victim at all); Gordon v. State , 327 Ga.App. 774, 761 S.E.2d 169 (June 26, 2014) (same as Kay ). Rouse v. State, 290 Ga.App. 740, 660 S.E.2d 476 (April 3, 2008). “‘Decisions about which jury charges to request are strategic and provide no grounds for reversal unless such tactical decisions are so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have chosen them,’” quoting King v. State, 282 Ga. 505, 507(2)(a) (651 S.E.2d 711) (2007). Accord, Hill v. State , 284 Ga. 521, 668 S.E.2d 673 (October 27, 2008). Sanders v. State, 283 Ga. 371, 659 S.E.2d 376 (March 31, 2008). Defendant, convicted of murder, was not harmed by giving charge on mutual combat. “ Because the mutual combat charge authorizes a jury to find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter in lieu of murder, it is a charge that benefits a defendant and, as such, a convicted defendant’s complaint that it was improper to give the charge is without merit. Sinkfield v. State, 266 Ga. 726(2) (470 S.E.2d 649) (1996); Hall v. State, 273 Ga.App. 203(3) (614 S.E.2d 844) (2005). Accordingly, trial counsel’s failure to reserve objections did not constitute deficient performance.” Reynolds v. State, 290 Ga.App. 44, 658 S.E.2d 815 (March 5, 2008), overruled on other grounds, 285 Ga. 70, 673 S.E.2d 854 (February 23, 2009) . In defendant’s trial for aggravated assault, no ineffective assistance in failing to request charge on lesser offense of simple assault where defendant claimed he only struck victim in self defense. Smith v. State, 283 Ga. 237, 657 S.E.2d 523 (January 28, 2008). No ineffective assistance based on failure to seek charge on accident, where defendant “vehemently denied having committed any act or having done anything to harm [victim].” Breazeale v. State, 290 Ga.App. 632, 660 S.E.2d 376 (January 23, 2008). Defendant claims ineffective assistance because counsel failed to seek limiting instruction upon admission of prior difficulties evidence. No contemporaneous instruction was given, but trial court sua sponte included limiting instruction in final charge. Thus, “Breazeale has not shown that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to request a limiting instruction at the time the evidence was admitted. [Cit.]” Accord, Hernandez v. State , 317 Ga.App. 845, 733 S.E.2d 30 (October 9, 2012). Taylor v. State, 282 Ga. 693, 653 S.E.2d 477 (November 21, 2007). At defendant’s murder trial, no ineffective assistance where counsel elected not to seek jury charge on self-defense or justification, focusing instead on lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. “Taylor notes that an inconsistency between two defenses does not preclude