☢ test - Í

with whom the child lived during the time the incidents allegedly occurred, to see what she knew about her daughter’s allegations against Dority. Had trial counsel done so, he would have gained valuable testimony to the effect that the child never made an outcry to her mother at the time of the alleged events; that she loved Dority, was comfortable around him, and called him ‘Dad’; that [State’s witness] Tressa Spriggs hated Rogers and was motivated to gain [victim] C.S. in the custody dispute; that C.S. had not seen Dority for more than a year before the outcry; and that, months after the outcry to Tressa Spriggs, C.S. denied being improperly touched by Dority.” The witness also had her own credibility issues, however, as well as damaging information about defendant. Thus, defendant wasn’t prejudiced by failure to present the witness. Barnes v. State, 331 Ga.App. 382, 771 S.E.2d 82 (March 19, 2015). Trial court properly denied motion to withdraw guilty pleas to statutory rape and child molestation; no ineffective assistance where counsel failed to contact a “woman Barnes wanted her to interview[. T]rial counsel testified that because the woman was asleep in another room of the house and the victim denied ever crying out for help, she explained to Barnes that the witness's testimony would not be helpful. … See Allen v. State, 277 Ga. 711, 712(3) (593 S.E.2d 662) (2004) (no ineffective assistance where trial counsel testified that he deliberately decided not to contact potential witnesses due to their lack of credibility and lack of any direct knowledge of the crimes). See also Sallins v. State, 289 Ga.App. 391, 393(1) (657 S.E.2d 309) (2008) (no ineffective assistance where trial counsel testified he thoroughly reviewed discovery, was provided with no information for witnesses who might help the defendant, and the victim would have identified defendant); Brigman v. State, 282 Ga.App. 481, 487(4) (639 S.E.2d 359) (2006) (finding no ineffective assistance where trial counsel testified he chose not to pursue other witnesses as a matter of strategy).” Wingate v. State, 296 Ga. 21, 764 S.E.2d 833 (October 20, 2014). Murder and armed robbery convictions affirmed; trial counsel provided deficient performance in failing to interview witness who told police that he saw someone else driving victim’s car after the murder. “At the motion for new trial hearing, trial counsel recalled that in discovery there was ‘some mention of someone seeing a vehicle that belonged to the victim’ being driven by someone else, but he did not recall contacting Brooks and could not remember if he subpoenaed him. Trial counsel further testified that he expected Brooks might appear for the State, but he also said that he did not attempt to hire an investigator to find Brooks. Counsel said that he was focused on preparing to cross-examine Appellant's co-indictees at the time, and his failing to secure Brooks's testimony was an ‘oversight.’” No prejudice, however, in light of Brooks’s equivocal and contradictory testimony at motion for new trial hearing. Wright v. State, 294 Ga. 798, 756 S.E.2d 513 (March 17, 2014). Murder and related convictions affirmed; counsel wasn’t ineffective in failing to interview witness who “refused to talk to defense counsel because she did not feel the need to do so and did not want to hurt the State's case.” Ashmid v. State, 316 Ga.App. 550, 730 S.E.2d 37 (July 2, 2012). Child molestation conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failure to obtain prosecution witnesses’ criminal histories, absent “showing in the record that any State witness even had a criminal history to discover.” Coney v. State, 316 Ga.App. 303, 728 S.E.2d 899 (June 20, 2012). Conviction for cocaine trafficking affirmed; no ineffective assistance despite counsel’s failure “to interview a number of witnesses, including the driver of the vehicle in which Coney traveled to the construction site, the radio dispatcher, and other officers at the scene. Coney also points out that counsel did not review the police video of the incident until the morning of trial. But Coney did not proffer any specific evidence at the hearing on the motion for new trial tending to show that he suffered prejudice as a result of these omissions. ‘In assessing the prejudicial effect of counsel's failure to call a witness (whether that failure resulted from a tactical decision, negligent oversight, or otherwise), a petitioner is required to make an affirmative showing that specifically demonstrates how counsel's failure would have affected the outcome of his case. The failure of trial counsel to employ evidence cannot be deemed to be “prejudicial” in the absence of a showing that such evidence would have been relevant and favorable to the defendant.’ (Emphasis supplied; citation and punctuation omitted.) Goodwin v. Cruz–Padillo, 265 Ga. 614, 615 (458 S.E.2d 623) (1995). Even on appeal, Coney fails to assert or show how, apart from the legal issues arising from his search and arraignment, any of this potential evidence would have affected his conviction for cocaine trafficking, the elements of which are possession of the drug in a certain amount and of a certain purity.” Lacey v. State, 288 Ga. 341, 703 S.E.2d 617 (November 8, 2010). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance shown from failure to interview witnesses before trial, “as [defendant] has made no attempt to detail