☢ test - Í

counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to introduce good character evidence, as he did not wish to open the door to potentially damaging questions on cross-examination regarding whether the opinions of the good character witnesses would have changed if they knew that someone had caused the death of a child. This claim of ineffective assistance is without merit. Id.” Accord, Neal (February 27, 2012), above. Nelson v. State, 305 Ga.App. 425, 699 S.E.2d 783 (July 29, 2010). Defendant’s convictions for cocaine possession and giving false name to officer affirmed; no ineffective assistance where trial counsel declined to call co-defendant as a witness who “was prepared to testify that he alone possessed the drugs. Nelson's trial counsel testified at the new trial hearing, however, that he decided not to call Heard for fear that, under cross-examination, Heard would reveal Nelson's status at the time of the crime as a parolee from a 15-year prison sentence. The prosecutor had expressed an intent to use that information to argue that Heard, who was not on probation or parole, was a ‘minion’ who was ‘tak[ing] the fall’ for the crime to protect his ‘brother,’ the real drug dealer who did not want to serve the remaining eight years of his sentence. Moreover, counsel was concerned that the State, during cross-examination, could further explore statements made by Heard to the police during the commission of the crime. Before making her decision not to call Heard as a defense witness, counsel, a veteran criminal trial attorney, sought the advice of her colleagues.” Westmoreland v. State, 287 Ga. 688, 699 S.E.2d 13 (June 28, 2010). Defendants’ felony murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel elected not to introduce police department chase policy, so as to argue that police violated that policy and thus caused death of victim in accident resulting from chase. At hearing on motion for new trial, counsel “testified that he did not believe ‘it was a good idea’ to try to put the policy into evidence or to suggest to the jury that the conduct of the officers was the proximate cause of the fatality because he was attempting to convince the jury to acquit on the felony murder charges and to find Westmoreland guilty of a lesser offense; therefore, he feared such an argument would damage his credibility. We find this to be an informed strategic decision that any reasonable attorney would make under the circumstances. See generally Phillips v. State, 277 Ga. 161 (587 S.E.2d 45) (2003).” Fedak v. State, 304 Ga.App. 580, 696 S.E.2d 421 (June 11, 2010). Defendant’s peeping Tom conviction reversed; defendant received ineffective assistance from counsel who failed to investigate his only defense – lack of intent, based on multiple sclerosis. On motion for new trial, defendant’s doctor testified that his condition affected his judgment and memory. Defendant asked counsel to present his doctor as a witness, but “trial counsel did not contact Dr. Hormes or otherwise investigate how or whether Fedak's MS could support his defense. Indeed, trial counsel did all he could to discourage Fedak and his wife from using Dr. Hormes as a witness, even though trial counsel had done no investigation to support this advice.” Counsel’s actions were not strategic, but resulted from failure to investigate. Court of Appeals finds a reasonable probability of a different outcome if the evidence had been presented. Taylor v. State, 304 Ga.App. 395, 696 S.E.2d 686 (June 11, 2010). Defendant’s convictions for armed robbery affirmed; no ineffective assistance where counsel chose not to call the victim as a witness. “At the motion for new trial hearing, Taylor's trial counsel testified that Dennis refused to talk to his investigator prior to trial and he was pleased that Dennis would not be a witness because it was better to go to trial without a sympathetic victim. Under the circumstances, trial counsel's tactical decision that his client's defense would be better served if Dennis did not take the witness stand was not deficient.” Brown v. State, 304 Ga.App. 168, 695 S.E.2d 698 (May 24, 2010). Defendant’s aggravated assault conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance where trial counsel served writ to produce jailed witness on sheriff, but didn’t also subpoena the witness himself. The witness was released from jail by the sheriff between service of the writ and the trial, two days later, and the witness’s attendance couldn’t be procured despite the efforts1 of counsel and the trial court. “Counsel explained that he did not serve the witness with a subpoena because the witness lacked the ability to come to court on his own while a prisoner in the county jail, [fn] and he saw no reason to do a meaningless act. … [W]here the jury acquitted Brown of burglary and one count of possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony, we cannot say that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel on the ground that counsel failed to serve a jailed witness with a subpoena in addition to obtaining a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum.” Manley v. State, 287 Ga. 338, 698 S.E.2d 301 (April 9, 2010). At defendants’ murder trial, no ineffective assistance where counsel failed to file notice of intent to present alibi evidence pertaining to witness to be presented by a third co- defendant, Allen-Brown. Allen-Brown apparently elected not to present the alibi defense or witness. “Counsel for both Manley and [co-defendant] Allen testified that, although they were aware that Allen-Brown intended to put up an alibi