☢ test - Í

OCGA § 24-10-40. Benham, joined by Carley and Hines, concurs specially, advocating for proffers of witness testimony in this context. Majority disagrees: “Even in the context of an offer of proof, ..., hearsay is not admissible through the testimony of counsel. Thus, the trial court may properly refuse counsel’s offer of proof where there has been no showing that the excluded testimony was from a witness who had either been properly subpoenaed or else prevented by the State from being present at trial and where counsel could proffer only what counsel thought the witness would say. Castell v. State, 252 Ga. 418(2) (314 S.E.2d 210) (1984).” Accord, Janasik v. State , 323 Ga.App. 545, 746 S.E.2d 208 (July 9, 2013) (at motion for new trial, defense counsel couldn’t state in place the anticipated testimony of defense expert who was unavailable at trial). Baughcum v. State, 277 Ga.App. 799, 627 S.E.2d 855 (February 28, 2006). Trial court was not required “to conduct a pre-trial hearing on Defendant’s request for new appointed counsel, to address his claim that trial counsel was ineffective,’” based merely on his contention “that ‘trial counsel could not possibly have been reasonably effective, considering the nature of his relationship with the Defendant[,]’ which was ‘contentious,’” where defendant “fails to point to a single instance of allegedly deficient performance by his trial counsel either before or during trial.” Carter v. State, 275 Ga.App. 846, 622 S.E.2d 60 (October 14, 2005). “[B]ecause Carter assumed responsibility for his own appeal, he is in the same position as new counsel, and he was required to raise the ineffectiveness of his trial defense counsel at his first opportunity. White v. Kelso, [261 Ga. 32, 33, 401 S.E.2d 733 (1991)]. In the circumstances of this case, Carter was required to raise this issue within the 30 day period, OCGA § 5-5-40(a), after the entry of his conviction in which he could have filed his motion for new trial. Glover v. State, 266 Ga. [183, 184, 465 S.E.2d 659 (1996)]. He did not do so.” Hart v. State, 272 Ga.App. 754, 613 S.E.2d 107 (February 28, 2005). “[A] court is not required to address both prongs of the Strickland test if the showing on one prong is insufficient. Wilkes v. State, 269 Ga.App. 532, 536(4) (604 S.E.2d 601) (2004).” Wilson v. State, 277 Ga. 195, 586 S.E.2d 669 (September 22, 2003). Where claim of ineffectiveness of counsel is properly preserved by motion for new trial, waiver of evidentiary hearing thereon is not equivalent to waiver of the issue itself. Although evidentiary hearing may be critical to develop evidence, depending on nature of ineffectiveness claim asserted, some claims may be clear from the record without necessity of further evidentiary hearing. Distinguishes Thompson v. State , 257 Ga. 386, 359 S.E.2d 664 (1987) (issue waived because not raised) from Dawson v. State , 258 Ga. 380, 369 S.E.2d 897 (1988) (issue preserved though hearing waived). Overrules numerous contrary cases. Bates v. State, 275 Ga. 862, 572 S.E.2d 550 (November 12, 2002). “Counsel cannot be expected to properly assert and argue his or her own ineffectiveness.” Once the issue is raised, new counsel should be appointed to address it. Accord, Landers v. State , 236 Ga.App. 368, 511 S.E.2d 889 (February 9, 1999); Capps v. State , 273 Ga.App. 696, 615 S.E.2d 821 (June 16, 2005); Rosser v. State , 276 Ga.App. 261, 623 S.E.2d 142 (November 7, 2005). Reed v. State, 275 Ga. 660, 571 S.E.2d 767 (October 28, 2002). Where issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was not raised in written motion for new trial, but was raised orally by defendant at hearing on new trial motion, and trial court held the record open for 30 days for further filings in support of that claim, and the trial court’s order covered the issue, the issue has been raised and waived and the case will not be remanded for further consideration thereof. McIntyre v. State, 239 Ga.App. 623, 520 S.E.2d 55 (June 28, 1999). Trial court properly declined to hold hearing on defendant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea based on alleged ineffective assistance where defendant failed “to mention any specific act or omission of counsel which he contends fell below the standard of reasonableness.” “The trial court is not obligated to hold an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where the claimant has failed to allege a prima facie case.” Landers v. State, 236 Ga.App. 368, 511 S.E.2d 889 (February 9, 1999). Aggravated assault and related convictions affirmed; claim of ineffective assistance wasn’t preserved for appellate review. Ttrial counsel filed a motion for new trial following defendant’s conviction. Seven weeks before the motion was heard, new counsel was appointed for defendant. The motion did not raise the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and new counsel did not amend the motion to add the issue. Held, under these circumstances, the issue has been waived and may not be raised for the first time on appeal. “[A]n attorney who is appointed to replace trial counsel before the ruling on such motion should raise the issue in an amended motion for new trial and request a hearing on the amended motion; otherwise, he risks waiving the issue. Id.;