☢ test - Í

crying when answering questions about the alleged incidents. Trial counsel concluded, ‘strategically, I don’t want that girl crying ... on the stand’ especially through the testimony of the last witness of the State’s case. Because we cannot conclude that no reasonable counsel would have made the same choice, we find no ineffective assistance on this point.” 3. Counsel’s decision to forego delving into some contraditions into victim’s various statements was not ineffective. “[T]rial counsel testified that he did not want to ‘beat up’ on the child too much in the witness stand and that he was trying to minimize testimony about sexual activity as much as possible. Trial counsel did cross examine M.D. on her outcry to her mother when she was about to be spanked and her failure to tell anyone about the alleged abuse while she was in Florida for ten days with her mother and sister. Although trial counsel could, perhaps, have done more, we conclude that with regard to the alleged failure to attack other inconsistencies in the testimony, Dority has failed to overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct.” 4. No ineffective assistance in “fail[ing] to seek the victims’ DFCS and juvenile court records, therapy records, school records, and pediatric records during his investigation of the case.” “[Trial] counsel testified that he never had any indication that any such documents would have assisted him in defending Dority, and that he thought his resources were better spent focusing on other matters, such as that the State initially intended to present four similar transaction witnesses; He also testified that he knew the victims had only entered therapy after their outcries; that he received some DFCS records and would have to ‘guess’ that additional DFCS records could have been beneficial; and that even though M.D. asserted that the incidents started three years earlier, he did not seek medical records for the same reason he did not seek a medical expert: the State’s evidence was consistent with innocence and therefore worked to Dority’s advantage. … Remembering that there is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the range of sound trial strategy and reasonable professional judgment and that the appellant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by showing that no reasonable lawyer would have made the same decision, [cit.] we conclude that Dority has not overcome this presumption. Here, trial counsel offered a reason for his decision not to seek additional records. … The simple fact that additional documents might have been helpful is not enough. Cf. Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 880(4)(c) (311 S.E.2d 161) (1984) (‘It is not enough to assert that expert analysis might produce evidence helpful to the defense, i.e., to embark on a “fishing expedition.”’).” McDuffie v. State, 298 Ga. 112, 779 S.E.2d 620 (November 16, 2015). Malice murder conviction affirmed; 1. no ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to call the State’s lead investigator as a witness. Defendant hoped the GBI agent would “impeach the State’s witnesses and … introduce positive evidence that Appellant was not present during the shooting. … But trial counsel—an experienced criminal defense lawyer—testified at the motion for new trial hearing that she made a strategic decision not to call Agent Barron, because case agents are generally more harmful than helpful to the defense and she was able to use [witness] Crisp’s initial statements to impeach him on cross-examination.” 2. No ineffective assistance in failing to compel testimony from witness who “ was incoherent, screaming, and refused to enter the courtroom when called, saying that she was in fear for her life. … Trial counsel testified at the motion for new trial hearing that she thought that having the incoherent Walker dragged to the stand against her will would not be beneficial to the defense, as her testimony was unpredictable and might have harmed Appellant. That strategic decision was perfectly reasonable.” Heard v. State, 334 Ga.App. 399, 779 S.E.2d 415 (November 10, 2015). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance where trial counsel “‘failed to highlight and press the issues relating to [Heard’s] comprehension of the Miranda warning and the threats to [Heard’s] family in the same manner that trial counsel did in the initial trial of the instant case.’ The standard for determining whether counsel is ineffective, however, is not whether counsel conducted a defense in the same manner as he did in a previous trial.” Harris v. State, 334 Ga.App. 299, 779 S.E.2d 83 (November 2, 2015). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failure to present alibi witness. “Even if counsel had introduced the girlfriend’s testimony that Harris was with her from 8 p.m. onward, it would not have helped Harris’s case because it directly contradicted Harris’s own trial testimony.” Mohamud v. State, 297 Ga. 532, 773 S.E.2d 755 (June 15, 2015). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance based on failure to call witness whose testimony conflicted with the physical evidence and medical examiner’s testimony regarding the location of the fatal wound. Miller v. State, 296 Ga. 9, 764 S.E.2d 823 (October 20, 2014). Murder and firearms convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failure to call defendant’s mother as a witness. Defendant contends that mom could have testified that Miller cut off his dreadlocks before the shooting, thus calling into question whether he fit the description of the killer. But