☢ test - Í

transcript of their testimony from defendant’s first trial (which resulted in mistrial on these charges). “Mackey has not shown that the witnesses were actually available or would have become available, but only argues their testimony would have been more credible if they had testified in person, citing no legal authority.” Ransom v. State, 298 Ga.App. 360, 680 S.E.2d 200 (June 16, 2009). No ineffective assistance where counsel failed to call a witness whose testimony would have contradicted defendant’s claim that defendant wasn’t at scene of shooting. Varner v. State, 285 Ga. 300, 676 S.E.2d 189 (April 28, 2009). No showing of ineffective assistance in failure to locate witness where defendant “did not produce any evidence to establish that a competent attorney exercising reasonable diligence under the same circumstances would have been able to locate [witness]. Compare Zant v. Hamilton, 251 Ga. 553(3) (307 S.E.2d 667) (1983) (counsel's failure to exercise reasonable diligence in locating witnesses constituted ineffective assistance).” Accord, Miller v. State , 305 Ga.App. 620, 700 S.E.2d 617 (August 19, 2010); Rankin v. State , 309 Ga.App. 817, 711 S.E.2d 377 (June 7, 2011). Gresham v. State, 295 Ga.App. 449, 671 S.E.2d 917 (January 6, 2009). No ineffective assistance for failure to present relatives as character witnesses. “Generally, ‘decisions concerning whether to call character witnesses and whether to place the defendant's character in issue are matters of strategy or tactics such as do not equate with ineffective assistance of counsel.’ Mitchell v. State, 223 Ga.App. 319, 320(5) (477 S.E.2d 612) (1996). Moreover, even if counsel's decision could be considered unreasonable, the trial court found the proffered character testimony of limited probative value, given the witnesses' close personal relationships with Gresham.” Accord, Howard v. State , 310 Ga.App. 659, 714 S.E.2d 255 (July 7, 2011). Williams v. State, 295 Ga.App. 249, 671 S.E.2d 268 (November 25, 2008). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed. No ineffective assistance for failure to locate and present witness: defendant wanted witness to testify about alleged pre-trial statement, identifying an alternative perpetrator, but at hearing on motion for new trial, witness denied making the statement. “If W.J. claimed no knowledge of the statement and refused to testify about it at the motion for new trial hearing, we cannot assume he would have testified differently or more fully at trial. Williams has failed to show that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different, but for counsel's failure to produce W.J. at trial.” Accord, Armour (February 27, 2012), above. Bray v. State, 294 Ga.App. 562, 669 S.E.2d 509 (November 14, 2008). Aggravated stalking and burglary convictions affirmed. No ineffective assistance from failure to subpoena phone records; victim agreed that call between her and defendant took place, but differed as to contents of call (that is, whether she invited defendant to her house). “Since the phone records would not have reflected the substance of the conversation, the issue was one of credibility on which the admission of the records would have had no impact. Accordingly, the failure of Bray's counsel's to obtain the phone records did not amount to ineffective assistance.” Port v. State, 295 Ga.App. 109, 671 S.E.2d 200 (November 14, 2008). Following convictions for false imprisonment and related offenses, trial counsel was not deficient for failure to present witnesses live at sentencing instead of their written statements. “ Decisions regarding which witnesses to call and what evidence to present during sentencing are matters of trial strategy. DeYoung v. State, 268 Ga. 780, 786(5) (493 S.E.2d 157) (1997). Port has set forth no evidence that, had the witnesses actually testified during the sentencing hearing, they would have offered any information that was not contained in the letters that were submitted to the trial court. Further, the letters that Port's counsel chose to exclude were deemed by her to be either cumulative or less relevant to Port's defense. Under these circumstances, Port cannot show that he was prejudiced by his attorney's decision to present the written, as opposed to live, statements to the court. See id.; Guyton v. State, 281 Ga. 789, 794(10)(d) (642 S.E.2d 67) (2007).” “[C]ounsel testified at the motion for new trial hearing that she was concerned about the logistics of coordinating live testimony from the numerous witnesses, the majority of whom lived outside of the state.” Hudson v. State, 284 Ga. 595, 669 S.E.2d 94 (November 3, 2008). Murder and related convictions affirmed. 1. Trial court could conclude that counsel’s failure to present witness was not ineffective based on the witness’s “demeanor at the motion for new trial hearing and the credibility problems that he would have presented as a trial witness.” 2. No ineffective assistance for failure to locate witness where “trial counsel testified at the motion for new trial hearing that she only had Garnigan's first name, and did not have an address or telephone number for Garnigan, when she attempted to locate her several months prior to trial. Trial counsel also hired a private investigator several months before trial in an effort to find Garnigan, and even personally visited a store where Garnigan allegedly worked in an attempt to