☢ test - Í

counsel's decision not to investigate ‘must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments.’ Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at 691.” Investigation here found not to be deficient. 2. Failure to follow all of the guidance found in the Southern Center for Human Rights’ manual, “Defending a Capital Case in Georgia,” is not per se ineffective assistance. “While it is appropriate to measure counsel's performance against prevailing norms of practice as reflected in publications such as the Southern Center's manual, as well as American Bar Association standards like the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, we remind habeas courts that such publications “are only guides ” in determining the reasonableness of counsel's performance, as no set of rules can adequately allow for “the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant.” (Emphasis supplied.) Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at 709. See Hall v. McPherson, 284 Ga. 219(2) (663 S.E.2d 659) (2008). 71. MOTION TO QUASH INDICTMENT/ACCUSATION, FAILURE TO FILE See subheading DEMURRER, FILING/FAILURE TO FILE, above 72. MOTION TO SUPPRESS/MOTION IN LIMINE, FAILURE TO FILE State v. Shelton, 329 Ga.App. 582, 765 S.E.2d 732 (November 13, 2014). Following conviction for cocaine possession and related offenses, trial court erred by granting motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel wasn’t ineffective for failure to file motion to suppress based on pat-down of defendant, as the pat-down didn’t result in discovery of the incriminating evidence in defendant’s car. Perera v. State, 295 Ga. 880, 763 S.E.2d 687 (September 22, 2014). Murder and related convictions affirmed; trial counsel for co-defendant Alma wasn’t deficient in failing to move to suppress evidence found in search of Perera’s residence. “Alma contends that trial counsel should have argued that he had standing to challenge the search of Perera's home because he was her boyfriend, stayed there frequently, and, as a result, had a protected right to privacy in the residence. It was trial counsel's understanding, however, that Alma did not stay at Perera's home frequently, and, therefore, Alma fails to prove that trial counsel was deficient for not pursuing the motion to suppress the search of Perera's house, given this understanding. See, e.g., Lawton v. State, 285 Ga.App. 45, 645 S.E.2d 571 (2007).” Barlow v. State, 327 Ga.App. 719, 761 S.E.2d 120 (June 24, 2014). Convictions for “multiple drug-related offenses” affirmed; no ineffective assistance for failing to prove a matter of which defendant failed to inform counsel. Defendant contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to show that he kept a possessory interest in the residence where the drugs were found (and thus had standing to challenge the search). “However, at the hearing on the motion for new trial, Barlow's trial counsel testified that he had consulted with Barlow, and Barlow had informed him that he had moved out of the Sherbrooke Way residence but never shared with him that he had kept a room or otherwise retained any type of possessory interest in the residence after moving out. Barlow cannot show that his trial counsel was deficient in failing to explore a matter at the suppression hearing of which Barlow had failed to make him aware. See Ellis v. State, 316 Ga.App. 352, 361(6), 729 S.E.2d 492 (2012).” Bester v. State, 294 Ga. 195, 751 S.E.2d 360 (November 18, 2013). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance from failure to file motion in limine to keep out similar transaction evidence. “Here, the trial court held a similar transaction hearing at which trial counsel argued that evidence of the incident should not be admitted because the victim denied that she had been raped. Thus, trial counsel in fact raised the argument that Bester now says that he should have raised, and trial counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to file a redundant motion in limine to assert the same ground he had already raised at the similar transaction hearing. ” Slan v. State, 316 Ga.App. 843, 730 S.E.2d 565 (July 13, 2012). Convictions for robbery and simple battery affirmed; no ineffective assistance. Defendant contends that counsel should have sought to suppress the clothing defendant was wearing at time of arrest, seized by search warrant; defense counsel testified, however, that he strategically didn’t object, because “counsel believed that there would be no gun residue on the clothes because he stated that he ‘was going to use that as a strategy that there was no such residue.’ No gun was recovered in this case. Accordingly, it is clear that trial counsel's decision not to move to suppress evidence of the clothing was a reasonable and strategic one.” Durham v. State, 309 Ga.App. 444, 710 S.E.2d 644 (April 28, 2011). Convictions for selling cocaine affirmed; no ineffective assistance where trial counsel failed to move to suppress evidence. “Durham contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance to him by failing to file a motion to suppress the videotaped evidence showing the sales transactions in his residence because the videotaping was done in violation of OCGA § 16–11–62(b) & (c). … Durham is