☢ test - Í

State, 261 Ga.App. 609 (583 S.E.2d 269) (2003). In Tenorio, defense counsel’s investigator did not interview or make a diligent effort to locate potential alibi witnesses. Id. at 612-613. In concluding that defense counsel’s pretrial investigation was deficient, this Court held that although it was the investigator and not trial counsel who shirked his duties, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring a thorough investigation lies with trial counsel. Id. at 613.” Overruled as to use of “abuse of discretion” standard for special (not general) grounds for new trial, O’Neal v. State , 285 Ga. 361, 677 S.E.2d 90 (May 4, 2009). Johnson v. State, 282 Ga. 96, 646 S.E.2d 216 (June 4, 2007). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance of counsel. No ineffective assistance where “[t]rial counsel testified that after interviewing [witness] Werts he made the tactical decision not to call her as a witness because he believed she could add nothing to the defense, and she might have informed the jury that Johnson suspected his wife’s adultery prior to learning about it [at the time of the shooting], which would have diluted his voluntary manslaughter theory.” Accord, Peterson v. State , 282 Ga. 286, 647 S.E.2d 592 (July 13, 2007) (not error to omit evidence that defendant was abused as a child to explain abuse she committed, where defense was that she hadn’t committed any); Scott v. State , 288 Ga.App. 738, 655 S.E.2d 326 (December 4, 2007) (“[defendant’s] girlfriend equivocated regarding her ability to account for Scott’s whereabouts and said that she was very nervous about testifying. Thus, counsel recommended to Scott that the girlfriend not be called as an alibi witness, and he agreed.”). Guyton v. State, 281 Ga. 789, 642 S.E.2d 67 (February 26, 2007). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance of counsel. “ Counsel cannot be faulted for failing to subpoena witnesses for the sentencing hearing. Counsel had every reason to expect that the witnesses, including [co-defendant] Preston’s mother and family members, would appear at the sentencing hearing voluntarily . Besides, Preston has failed to demonstrate that he would have received a more lenient sentence if the witnesses were present.” Walker v. State, 281 Ga. 521, 640 S.E.2d 274 (January 22, 2007). Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance; counsel’s decision not to present prior testimony of missing witness was reasonable, given that the State could show that the testimony was perjured. Accord, Thornton v State , 288 Ga.App. 60, 653 S.E.2d 361 (October 25, 2007). Nichols v. State, 281 Ga. 483, 640 S.E.2d 40 (January 8, 2007). No ineffective assistance in defendant’s felony murder prosecution; counsel’s decision not to present evidence of victim’s prior manslaughter conviction was strategic. “[T]he trial attorney testified that he was aware that the victim had a prior conviction, possibly for manslaughter, but that he considered it to be less relevant to the justification defense than the evidence that Nichols himself had recently been stabbed by her. … ‘“[M]atters of reasonable trial strategy and tactics do not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.’ (Cit.)” [Cit.]’ Wiggins v. State, supra at 630(2)(a). Deciding what evidence to present or to forego in defending a client charged with a crime is a matter of strategy and tactics. Dewberry v. State, 271 Ga. 624, 625(2) (523 S.E.2d 26) (1999). Accordingly, the attorney’s determination to rely exclusively on prior difficulties between Nichols and the victim was not an instance of deficient performance.” Accord , Patterson v. State , 284 Ga.App. 780, 645 S.E.2d 38 (March 21, 2007) (choosing not to call witness who might hurt case was reasonable trial strategy). Smith v. State, 282 Ga.App. 339, 638 S.E.2d 791 (November 8, 2006). Defendant failed to carry burden of proof on his claims of ineffectiveness based on failure to call certain witnesses and present certain evidence. “‘[T]he failure to call trial counsel as a witness in the motion for new trial hearing alone allows the trial court to assume that the matter was a deliberate trial strategy and to rule against defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance.’ Baker v. State, 251 Ga.App. 377, 379(2) (554 S.E.2d 324) (2001).” Scott v. State, 281 Ga.App. 106, 635 S.E.2d 582 (August 14, 2006). “At Scott’s hearing on his motion for a new trial, his trial counsel testified that she made a strategic decision not to call Scott’s brother and sister-in-law to testify at trial, because she did not believe that they would add anything to the information that the other witnesses were already giving. ‘Trial strategy and tactics do not equate with ineffective assistance of counsel. The fact that [defendant] and his present counsel disagree with the decision made by trial counsel does not require a finding that [defendant’s] original representation was inadequate.’ Hines v. State, 248 Ga.App. 752, 756(3) (548 S.E.2d 642) (2001).” Accord, Starks v. State , 283 Ga. 164, 656 S.E.2d 518 (January 28, 2008) (decision not to have defendant testify at suppression hearing was strategic given his prior varying accounts of what occurred”). Walker v. State, 279 Ga.App. 390, 631 S.E.2d 413 (May 12, 2006). Burglary conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance of counsel. “ Walker offered only pure speculation regarding the testimony of the alleged potential