☢ test - Í

have been allowed to present evidence that he didn’t know victim was just 14 – evidence he was prohibited from presenting at joint trial. No harm, however, as defendant was acquitted on the offense for which the evidence might have been admissible, anyway, citing “ Williams v. State, 178 Ga.App. 581, 585(1) (344 S.E.2d 247) (1986) (no error where appellant was acquitted of the charges that allegedly should have been severed and appellant ‘has shown no harm or prejudice which might have been avoided by severing the trials’).” Ross v. State, 313 Ga.App. 695, 722 S.E.2d 411 (January 26, 2012). Convictions for sale of cocaine and related offenses affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failure to seek severance of sale of cocaine charges from possession with intent to distribute charge. Decision not to seek severance was strategic: “trial counsel testified at the motion for new trial hearing that, after discussing the issue with Ross, they decided as a matter of trial strategy not to seek a severance. They believed that one of the sale of cocaine counts was very weak and that the possession with intent to distribute charge was also flawed since the drugs were not found in Ross' actual possession. So they hoped that the cumulative effect of the weakness of those counts would dominate the case and result in acquittals for all three drug charges; indeed, Ross was acquitted of one of the sale counts. Ross presented no evidence to contradict counsel's testimony concerning the trial strategy.” Anderson v. State, 311 Ga.App. 732, 716 S.E.2d 813 (September 20, 2011). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance where counsel elected not to seek severance from co-defendant Espinosa “because he believed that in light of Bruton, if the two defendants were tried together, the chances of Espinosa implicating Anderson would diminish. Anderson's trial counsel further testified that he thought the dangers of severance outweighed any benefits and that, even with the benefit of hindsight, he would have made the same decision.” Johnson v. State, 287 Ga. 767, 700 S.E.2d 346 (September 20, 2010). Defendant’s conviction for malice murder affirmed; no ineffective assistance. “[D]efendant posits that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to file a motion to sever his trial from that of his co-defendant, Brinson, because their defenses were antagonistic. However, ‘[a]ntagonism between codefendants is not enough in itself to require severance, rather [defendant] must also demonstrate that he was harmed by the failure to sever.’ Rivers v. State, 283 Ga. 1, 8 (655 S.E.2d 594) (2008). Defendant has not made this showing; nor has he shown that the outcome of his trial would have been different if severance had been granted.” Gresham v. State, 295 Ga.App. 449, 671 S.E.2d 917 (January 6, 2009). No ineffective assistance for failure to seek severance from co-defendant, although defendant wanted to present evidence of co-defendant’s prior similar offense. “Trial counsel considered the severance issue and decided – as a matter of strategy – not to move to sever. Moreover, although [co-defendant] Forsyth did not testify at trial, evidence of her prior drug use was admitted through another witness. Under these circumstances, we agree with the trial court that counsel's strategic decision did not constitute deficient performance. Graves v. State, 272 Ga.App. 178, 180(2) (612 S.E.2d 37) (2005).” Adkins v. State, 280 Ga. 761, 632 S.E.2d 650 (July 13, 2006). No ineffective assistance where counsel made strategic decision not to seek severance of trial with co-defendants because “[i]n trial counsel’s opinion, the evidence was stronger against the co-defendants, and it was counsel’s intent to distance [defendant] from them. Trial counsel was not ineffective in implementing this strategy. [Cit.]” Accord, Jackson v. State , 281 Ga. 705, 642 S.E.2d 656 (March 19, 2007); Lott v. State , 303 Ga.App. 775, 694 S.E.2d 698 (March 31, 2010); Smith v. State , 309 Ga.App. 889, 714 S.E.2d 593 (June 14, 2011); Jackson v. State , 316 Ga.App. 80, 729 S.E.2d 404 (May 30, 2012). Ferrill v. State, 278 Ga.App. 132, 628 S.E.2d 217 (March 8, 2006). Counsel’s decision not to seek severance of offenses “because he ‘felt like the law, as [he] understood it, would not support it’ ... was a strategic one,” and thus defendant “cannot show that counsel’s performance was deficient on this ground. [Cit.]” Berry v. State, 274 Ga.App. 366, 618 S.E.2d 72 (July 12, 2005). “The decision whether to file a motion to sever is a matter of trial tactics and the fact that such a motion was not filed does not require a finding that trial counsel was ineffective. [Cits.]” Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 522, 615 S.E.2d 532 (June 30, 2005). “The failure to file a motion to sever does not require a finding of ineffective assistance since the decision whether to seek severance is a matter of trial tactics or strategy ( Johnson v. State, 268 Ga. 416(4) (490 S.E.2d 91) (1997)), and a decision amounting to reasonable trial strategy does not constitute deficient performance. [Cit.] Since a defendant does not have an automatic right of severance of offenses if the offenses are based on a single transaction or the crimes evidence a common plan or scheme ( Sampson v. State, 279 Ga.