☢ test - Í

Estes v. State, 279 Ga.App. 394, 631 S.E.2d 438 (May 15, 2006). No ineffective assistance for failing to interview a witness who “refused to give a statement or to take a polygraph test before trial on the ground that such acts might incriminate her.” Counsel otherwise thoroughly investigated and prepared for trial. Terry v. Jenkins, 280 Ga. 341, 627 S.E.2d 7 (February 27, 2006). Evidence supported habeas court’s finding that defense counsel failed to present certain witnesses, not out of strategic decision, but “inattention” and failure to investigate; and further, that there existed a reasonable probability of a different outcome if the evidence had been presented to the jury. “‘Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.’ Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521-522(II)(A), 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (citations and punctuation omitted). See Martin v. Barrett, 279 Ga. 593, 619 S.E.2d 656 (2005). Counsel’s failure to investigate is unreasonable where, as the habeas court found in this case, it resulted from inattention and not from reasoned strategic judgment. Wiggins, supra at 526(II)(B)(1), 534(II)(B)(3). ... As determined by the habeas court, ‘this is not a case where, after investigation, counsel for the defendant decided to pursue one strategy rather than another’ but a case where counsel’s ‘investigation into their own theory of the case was entirely inadequate.’” Distinguished, Horne (June 29, 2009), above; Humphrey v. Williams , 295 Ga. 536, 761 S.E.2d 297 (July 11, 2014) (“strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation.”). Ford v. State, 272 Ga.App. 798, 613 S.E.2d 234 (April 13, 2005). “While it certainly would have been the better practice for counsel to interview the state’s witnesses before trial , Ford has made no showing as to how the outcome of his trial would have been different if his counsel had done so. Because Ford has failed to establish that counsel’s allegedly deficient performance so prejudiced his defense that there exists a reasonable probability that the trial result would have differed but for the deficiency, we must affirm the trial court’s finding that Ford did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Lovelace v. State, 241 Ga.App. 774, 776(3)(b) (527 S.E.2d 878) (2000).” Accord, Fitz v. State , 275 Ga.App. 817, 622 S.E.2d 46 (October 13, 2005); Johnson v. State , 290 Ga.App. 255, 659 S.E.2d 638 (February 21, 2008). Cooper v. State, 279 Ga. 189, 612 S.E.2d 256 (March 28, 2005). Malice murder conviction affirmed. Trial court properly found that defendant showed no prejudice where counsel failed to investigate victim’s violent nature and present evidence thereof to the jury; substantial evidence of victim’s violent nature was shown by the evidence at trial. Three justices dissent, based on Johnson v. State, 266 Ga. 380, 383 (467 S.E.2d 542) (1996). Vanholten v. State, 271 Ga.App. 782, 610 S.E.2d 555 (February 1, 2005). Armed robbery conviction affirmed. “Vanholten’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview the State’s witnesses is … mere speculation, and … meritless, because Vanholten did not ‘establish what interviewing these witnesses before trial would have added to his defense, and hence we cannot assess whether such interviews would have changed the outcome of his trial. Therefore, [defendant] also has failed to establish that this alleged instance of ineffectiveness prejudiced his defense.’ (Footnote omitted.)” quoting Washington v. State , 274 Ga. 428, 430, 554 S.E.2d 173 (2001). Accord, Hooker v. State , 278 Ga.App. 382, 629 S.E.2d 74 (March 23, 2006); Durham v. State , 292 Ga. 239, 734 S.E.2d 377 (November 19, 2012) (“Durham has not demonstrated prejudice by showing that the witness would have agreed to speak to trial counsel before trial if they had the opportunity.”). Moore v. State, 278 Ga. 397, 603 S.E.2d 228 (September 27, 2004). Conviction for murder and related offenses affirmed. “‘ Trial counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to track down a witness whose whereabouts are unknown . [Cit.]’ Morris v. State, 257 Ga.App. 169(2) (570 S.E.2d 619) (2002). Here, not only was the witness’s location unknown, but the witness’s identity was unknown to trial counsel. Under those circumstances, we find no error in the trial court’s rejection of this claim of ineffectiveness.” Accord, Winfield v. State , 278 Ga.App. 618, 629 S.E.2d 548 (March 31, 2006); Ingram v. State , 280 Ga.App. 467, 634 S.E.2d 430 (June 26, 2006); Hernandez v. State , 303 Ga.App. 103, 692 S.E.2d 712 (March 24, 2010); McIlwain v. State , 287 Ga. 115, 694 S.E.2d 657 (April 19, 2010); Miller v. State , 305 Ga.App. 620, 700 S.E.2d 617 (August 19, 2010); Harris v. Upton , 292 Ga. 491, 739 S.E.2d 300 (March 4, 2013); Brown v. State , 293 Ga. 518, 748 S.E.2d 388 (September 9, 2013); Lewis v. State , 294 Ga. 526, 755 S.E.2d 156 (February 24,