☢ test - Í

S.E.2d 114 (2006). In this case, Blackford's testimony was impeached with evidence that he had received immunity from the State, that he had charges pending against him, that he had ‘immigration issues,’ and that he fled when the police attempted to arrest him. Trial counsel emphasized in her closing argument that he had a motive to lie, and the State argued in its closing argument that Blackford was lying about his lack of knowledge of the marijuana.” “[E]ven if trial counsel had impeached Blackford with additional evidence of flight, there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. See Boothe v. State, 293 Ga. 285, 295(4), 745 S.E.2d 594 (2013) (finding no prejudice resulted from counsel's failure to further impeach State's witness with prior conviction).” Wallace v. State, 294 Ga. 257, 754 S.E.2d 5 (October 21, 2013). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance shown. Defendant claimed that counsel was ineffective in failing to impeach State’s witness with his criminal convictions, but on motion for new trial defendant also failed to prove the witness’s convictions. “Thus, Appellant did not satisfy his burden of showing ineffective assistance in this respect. See Fuller [ v. State, 278 Ga. 812, 815 (607 S.E.2d 581) (2005)] (rejecting the defendant's contention that trial counsel provided deficient performance by failing to impeach two witnesses with their prior convictions, where the defendant did not produce certified copies of the prior convictions at the motion for new trial hearing); Bihlear v. State, 295 Ga.App. 486, 488–489 (672 S.E.2d 459) (2009) (holding that the defendant failed to carry his burden to show deficient performance of trial counsel in not impeaching two witnesses with their prior convictions where he ‘did not produce certified copies of those convictions at the motion for new trial hearing to establish that these witnesses did, in fact, have criminal records’). See also Kilby v. State, 289 Ga.App. 457, 461 (657 S.E.2d 567) (2008) (treating the failure to produce certified copies of prior convictions that the defendant says trial counsel should have used for impeachment as a failure to make the required ‘showing of prejudice, i.e., that the use of the conviction would have made a difference in the outcome of his trial’); Baskin v. State, 267 Ga.App. 711, 714 (600 S.E.2d 599) (2004) (same).” Burger v. State, 323 Ga.App. 787, 748 S.E.2d 462 (September 4, 2013). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance where counsel introduced evidence of convictions of State’s witnesses through cross- examinnation rather than via certified copies. “A better practice for trial counsel indeed may have been to tender certified copies of the convictions. However, the testimony elicited made the jury aware that the perpetrators had sworn to testify truthfully; that they were testifying for the State; that they had pled guilty; and that they had received mandatory minimum sentences rather than the maximum sentences available. Given this, and given the overwhelming evidence of Burger's guilt (including his own testimony), he has failed to show that he was prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to tender the certified copies of the convictions into evidence. Harrell v. State, 253 Ga.App. 691, 698(5)(b), 560 S.E.2d 295 (2002) (even though certified copies of convictions could have impeached a witness, any deficiency in counsel's failure to tender them did not prejudice defendant where jury already knew of the convictions, and where there was no reasonable probability of a different result at trial).” Ellicott v. State, 320 Ga.App. 729, 740 S.E.2d 716 (March 25, 2013). Aggravated battery and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failing to impeach victim with her prior inconsistent testimony from a civil deposition. “Trial counsel testified … that he read the deposition with Ellicott prior to trial, and that the victim's prior testimony was not relevant to the specific facts of this case. In fact, trial counsel stated that portions of the deposition testimony might have hurt Ellicott's defense,” by showing that he insisted on having sex with her when she had a painful medical condition. “‘Whether to impeach prosecution witnesses and how to do so are tactical decisions.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) McMichael v. State, 305 Ga.App. 876, 878, 700 S.E.2d 879 (2010).” Accord, New case!Edwards v. State , S16A0255, ___ Ga. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 2619593 (May 9, 2016). Lynch v. State, 291 Ga. 555, 731 S.E.2d 672 (September 10, 2012). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance “by failing to impeach the deceased victim with his prior felony conviction for cocaine possession with intent to distribute. Trial counsel testified, however, that it was his strategy to show that officers misunderstood the victim when he was gurgling and close to death. Trial counsel wanted to avoid the strategy of attacking the dying victim's credibility, which he considered risky. This strategy was reasonable, and ‘[a]s a general rule, matters of reasonable trial strategy and tactics do not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.’ Wright v. State, 274 Ga. 730, 732(2)(b) (559 S.E.2d 437) (2002).” Smarr v. State, 317 Ga.App. 584, 732 S.E.2d 110 (September 6, 2012). Convictions for burglary and attempted burglary affirmed (but sentence vacated); 1. no ineffective assistance where counsel decided not to dwell on impeaching one witness with inconsistencies in her testimony and prior statement because “he viewed her as a ‘very sympathetic’ witness (her child had been taken from her as a result of her arrest), and he deduced that trying to ‘break her down’ or portray her