☢ test - Í

83. PRO SE DEFENDANTS Williams v. State, S15A1857, ___ Ga. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 462667 (February 8, 2016). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed; defendant couldn’t claim ineffective assistance of appellate counsel after electing to represent himself on appeal. “Because appellant waived his right to counsel and proceeded pro se, appellate counsel played no role in the motion for new trial proceedings or direct appeal, and appellant is not entitled to raise an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim.” Hughes v. State, 323 Ga.App. 4, 746 S.E.2d 648 (July 15, 2013). Convictions for motor vehicle hijacking and related offenses affirmed; defendant couldn’t claim ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel where defendant discharged counsel and represented himself on motion for new trial. Defendant contended that counsel should have raised issue of competence to stand trial, and should have ‘brought out omitted evidence.’ But defendant raised these issues himself, and also failed to present the evidence he claims should have been raised. “The Supreme Court of Georgia held in White v. Kelso, 261 Ga. 32 (401 S.E.2d 733) (1991), that ‘a pro se petitioner is in a position similar to that of new counsel,’ Id. at 33, and that ‘[n]ew counsel must raise the ineffectiveness of previous counsel at the first possible stage of post-conviction review.’ Id. at 32; see generally Glover v. State, 266 Ga. 183, 184(2) (465 S.E.2d 659) (1996) (explaining that an ineffectiveness claim must be raised ‘at the earliest practicable moment’ requires that that claim be raised before appeal if the opportunity to do so is available; that the ability to raise the issue on motion for new trial represents such an opportunity; and that the failure to seize that opportunity is a procedural bar to raising the issue at a later time).” “And ‘when a criminal defendant elects to represent himself, either solely or in conjunction with representation or assistance by an attorney, he will not thereafter be heard to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to any stage of the proceedings wherein he was counsel.’ Mullins v. Lavoie, 249 Ga. 411, 412–413 (290 S.E.2d 472) (1982). Accord Fields v. State, 310 Ga.App. 455, 459(4) (714 S.E.2d 45) (2001) (holding that where appellant ‘proceeded pro se at trial, he cannot raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim with regard to issues that arose during trial’).” Hooker v. State, 278 Ga.App. 382, 629 S.E.2d 74 (March 23, 2006). Defendant could not complain of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial allegedly committed while he was acting as his own co-counsel. “‘When a criminal defendant elects to represent himself, either solely or in conjunction with representation or assistance by an attorney, he will not thereafter be heard to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to any stage of the proceedings wherein he was counsel.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 192 Ga.App. 317, 319(3) (384 S.E.2d 877) (1989).” Accord, Jones v. State , 303 Ga.App. 366, 693 S.E.2d 549 (March 15, 2010). Lopez v. State, 259 Ga.App. 720, 578 S.E.2d 304 (February 18, 2003). “Since he waived his right to counsel and proceeded pro se, Lopez cannot raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Accord, Robinson v. State , 288 Ga.App. 219, 653 S.E.2d 810 (November 2, 2007); Fields v. State , 310 Ga.App. 455, 714 S.E.2d 45 (July 1, 2011). Garland v. State, 242 Ga.App. 19, 528 S.E.2d 550 (January 21, 2000). Convictions for burglary, rape, and related offenses affirmed; trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for mistrial based on his own pro se mistakes at trial (failure to ask questions on voir dire, failure to give opening statement, etc.). “‘When a criminal defendant [knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily waives his right to counsel] and appears pro se, he will not thereafter be heard to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when he was the acting counsel at the time of the alleged error. [Cit.]’ Tucker v. State, 173 Ga.App. 742, 743(2), 327 S.E.2d 852 (1985).” 84. PROCEDURE Cowart v. State, 294 Ga. 333, 751 S.E.2d 399 (November 18, 2013). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed; defendant waived ineffective assistance claim by failing to include it in motion for new trial, or amend motion after hearing. “Cowart did not raise it in his motion for new trial and did not obtain a ruling on it by the trial court. See Bailey v. State, 264 Ga. 300, 300, 443 S.E.2d 836 (1994). Cowart's new appellate counsel briefly questioned his trial counsel on this issue at the hearing on the motion for new trial; she then discussed the issue in a supplemental brief filed after the hearing, in which she argued that Cowart could amend his motion for new trial at any time before the trial court ruled on it, citing Horne v. State, 231 Ga.App. 864, 501 S.E.2d 47 (1998), and OCGA § 5–5–40(b), which says that ‘[t]he motion [for new trial] may be amended any time on or before the ruling thereon.’ But Cowart never actually amended his motion to add such a claim.” Accord, Hundley v. State , 295 Ga. 703, 763 S.E.2d 717 (September 22, 2014) (allegations of ineffective assistance not raised before trial court on motion for new trial weren’t preserved for review on appeal).