☢ test - Í

Ga.App. 557, 559, 504 S.E.2d 762 (1998). ‘Trial strategy and tactics do not equate with ineffective assistance of counsel.’ (Punctuation omitted.) Id. ‘This is true even if trial counsel’s tactics or strategy may have been unwise.’ Ross v. State, 231 Ga.App. 793, 799(7), 499 S.E.2d 642 (1998).” Accord, Davis v. State , 311 Ga.App. 699, 716 S.E.2d 710 (July 15, 2011) (aggravated sodomy and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance where counsel didn’t pursue defendant’s desired defense – “that his wife caused her own injuries by ‘shoving a cologne bottle in her anus” – which counsel deemed not credible); King v. State , 320 Ga.App. 90, 739 S.E.2d 654 (February 14, 2013) (counsel could decline to present pictures of 2x4 boards which defendant contended caused injuries to child sodomy victim). 103. TRIAL PREPARATION, See subheading PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION/PREPARATION, above 104. VENUE, FAILURE TO CHALLENGE PROOF Muldrow v. State, 322 Ga.App. 190, 744 S.E.2d 413 (June 12, 2013). Rape, kidnapping and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance where defense counsel stipulated to venue, given that trial court had discretion to re-open evidence, anyway. Hinkle v. State, 282 Ga.App. 328, 638 S.E.2d 781 (November 8, 2006). No ineffective assistance for failure to challenge failure to prove venue; although venue may not have been properly proven, “the trial judge stated, in denying the motion for new trial, that, as it had already been established that the crime occurred in the city of Rome, if counsel had moved for a directed verdict, she would have allowed the State to reopen its case and present additional evidence of venue in Floyd County. See Dandy v. State, 238 Ga.App. 435(2) (518 S.E.2d 907) (1999) (trial court has discretion to permit State to reopen its case after close of evidence to establish venue).Because Hinkle has not shown that the outcome of his case would have been different if trial counsel had moved for a directed verdict, he has not established prejudice, and thus his claim of ineffective assistance fails. See id.” 105. VENUE, FAILURE TO SEEK CHANGE Smith v. State, 298 Ga. 491, 783 S.E.2d 91 (February 22, 2016). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failure to seek change of venue. “Smith cannot prevail on an ineffectiveness claim premised on counsel’s failure to address pre-trial publicity because voir dire in this case was not transcribed and there is, thus, no evidence as to the effect of any such pre-trial publicity on the jury venire. Absent such evidence, Smith cannot establish any reasonable probability that counsel’s failure to address the alleged pre-trial publicity had any impact at all on the result of Smith’s trial.” Wilson v. State, 286 Ga. 141, 686 S.E.2d 104 (November 9, 2009). No ineffective assistance where counsel strategically chose not to seek change of venue. “At the motion for new trial hearing, trial counsel testified that he decided not to seek a change of venue because he had previously tried a similar high profile case in the same county and had obtained a verdict of acquittal in that case, and he believed that the pretrial publicity in the instant case would actually benefit the defense. Based on this testimony, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the attorney's strategic decision not to seek a change of venue was not deficient. ‘[T]he decision whether ... to file ... a motion for change of venue, as with other motions, is a matter of trial strategy or tactics....’ White v. State, 221 Ga.App. 860, 864(3) (473 S.E.2d 539) (1996).” Harvey v. State, 284 Ga. 4, 660 S.E.2d 528 (April 21, 2008). No ineffective assistance shown where counsel made motion to change venue, but “failed to conduct a ‘citizen survey’ and present affidavits and witnesses establishing the community’s concern about the trial and alleged threats being made against [defendant]”; defendant fails to show that the jury was, in fact, tainted. 106. VOIR DIRE – See subheading JURY SELECTION, above 107. WITNESS CREDIBILITY, See subheading BOLSTERING WITNESS CREDIBILITY, FAILURE TO OBJECT, above 108. WITNESSES, CROSS-EXAMINATION/QUESTIONING, See subheadings CROSS- EXAMINATION/QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES and WITNESSES, FAILURE TO IMPEACH, below 109. WITNESSES, FAILURE TO IMPEACH New case! Clark v. State, S15A0230, ___ Ga. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 3145123 (June 6, 2016). Felony murder and firearms convictions affirmed. Under pre-2013 Evidence code, no ineffective assistance in failing to impeach State’s witness with prior armed robbery convictions. “At the motion for new trial hearing, Clark merely introduced copies of