☢ test - Í

Grant v. State, 295 Ga. 126, 757 S.E.2d 831 (April 22, 2014). Malice murder conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance based on failure to raise a Batson challenge to State’s peremptory strikes. Defendant’s contention “that because he is African–American and the jury was comprised of eleven white members and one African–American member, counsel was deficient for failing to make a Batson challenge,” is insufficient . “Appellant's conjecture, based solely on the ultimate composition of the jury, is, by itself, insufficient evidence of purposeful discriminatory intent. See Livingston v. State, 271 Ga. 714, 718, 524 S.E.2d 222 (1999) (‘Even though “circumstantial evidence of invidious intent may include proof of disproportionate impact,” numbers alone may not establish a disproportionate exercise of strikes sufficient to raise a prima facie inference that the strikes were exercised with discriminatory intent. [Cit.]’).” Walker v. State, 294 Ga. 752, 755 S.E.2d 790 (March 10, 2014). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failing to object to hypothetical question to juror during voir dire. “As Walker recognizes, there is no per se rule against hypothetical questions during voir dire of prospective jurors. This Court has noted that, under Uniform Superior Court Rule 10.1, ‘[h]ypothetical questions are discouraged, but may be allowed in the discretion of the court. It is improper to ask how a juror would act in certain contingencies or on a certain hypothetical state of facts. No question shall be framed so as to require a response from a juror which might amount to a prejudgment of the action. [Cit.]’ Ellington v. State, 292 Ga. 109, 127(7)(b), 735 S.E.2d 736 (2012). The question posed by the State did not in any way call for a response amounting to a prejudgment of the State's prosecution of Walker.” Question here asked if jurors could determine guilt/innocence without considering sentence, giving the example of “a very poor young girl who steals some bread out of desperation to feed her hungry child.” Brown v. State, 325 Ga.App. 237, 750 S.E.2d 453 (November 8, 2013). Terroristic threats and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance where counsel didn’t seek excusal or strike of juror who “answered affirmatively when trial counsel asked the venire to indicate ‘if you have such strong feelings about the use of guns that it would overrule your ability to be fair and listen to the evidence in this case....’” “Even presuming that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to inquire further or to rehabilitate Juror 21, Brown has failed to establish prejudice under Strickland. It is true that Juror 21 answered affirmatively to the question, however, she did not answer affirmatively when asked if she had formed or expressed an opinion as to Brown's guilt or innocence, did not answer affirmatively when asked if she had any prejudice or bias for or against Brown, and did not indicate otherwise than that her mind was perfectly impartial between the State and Brown.” Osorio v. State, 323 Ga.App. 843, 748 S.E.2d 483 (September 12, 2013). Meth trafficking conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance based on failure “to request the full 15 minutes authorized by Uniform Superior Court Rule 11 to prepare for jury selection.” “Although Osorio argues that ‘trial counsel's failure to fully, properly and effectively review his notes from voir dire’ allowed two jurors with negative life experiences with drugs to be placed on the jury, Osorio has failed to show that trial counsel did not adequately prepare for jury selection. Further, Osorio has failed to show that trial counsel's decision regarding which prospective jurors to strike would have been different had he used the full 15 minutes to prepare for jury selection. Lastly, Osorio has failed to show that there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of the trial would have been different had trial counsel struck those particular jurors instead of two others. ‘The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable.’ (Citation omitted.) Hill [ v. State, 291 Ga. 160, 164(4), 728 S.E.2d 225 (2012)].” Barmore v. State, 323 Ga.App. 377, 746 S.E.2d 289 (July 15, 2013). Child molestation and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance where counsel miscounted his strikes for cause and ran out before striking a juror he had intended to strike. “Barmore's counsel admitted at the hearing on the motion for new trial that he had valid tactical and strategic reasons for the nine strikes he made. … We cannot say under the circumstances of this case that a reasonable trial counsel who properly counted his strikes would have struck the jury in a different way. See Shields v. State, [307 Ga.App. 830, 832 (706 S.E.2d 187) (2011)] (finding that trial counsel's decision to exercise only five peremptory challenges in mistaken belief that he had no additional challenges did not amount to deficient performance, because ‘it does not follow that this misunderstanding necessarily affected his strategic decision to strike only five prospective jurors.’)” Strickland v. State, 323 Ga.App. 348, 746 S.E.2d 204 (July 9, 2013). DUI conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance where counsel elected to ask no questions on voir dire. “[T]he trial court's order denying Strickland's motion for new trial found that the court asked each juror general questions, and the State followed with more specific questions. This finding is not challenged in Strickland's brief. As the trial court aptly concluded, trial counsel's choice not to prolong voir dire was not unreasonable.”