FOURTH D I VI SI ON DI L LA RD, P. J. , B ROWN and PA DGETT, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w . ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

October 2, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 6 6 0. SM I TH v . TH E STA TE.
P A D G E T T , J u d ge. A j u ry f o u nd Selw o r th Smith (“ ap p ellant” ) gu ilty o f o ne c o u nt o f

aggrav ated

assau lt

- family v io lenc e and o ne c o u nt o f simp le battery

- f amily vio lenc e. A p p ellant
seek s rev iew of t he d enial of his mo tio n f o r new trial, argu ing that t he trial co u rt erred
in ad mitting c ertain ev id enc e d u ring the trial, and in d e nying a p p ellant’ s mo tio n f o r d isc harge and ac qu ittal. Fu r ther, a p p el l a n t a r g ues that he w as d enied ef f ec tiv e assistanc e o f

c o u nsel. 1 Fo r the reaso ns set f o rth herein, w e d isagree and af firm.

1 A p p ellant a lso c laims erro r relating to t he r ev oc atio n o f the p ro bated p o rtio n o f the sentenc e that w as imp o sed in this c ase. The r ev oc atio n hearing w a s co nd u c ted o n t h e s ame d ate o f t he hearing o n his mo tio n f o r new trial and , af

ter hearing t h e ev id enc e p resented , the t rial j u d ge rev o k ed p ro batio n p rio r to ap p ellant’ s mo tio n f o r new t rial being d ec id ed

. H ow ev er, no timely ap p lic atio n f o r disc retio nary ap p eal w as f iled by ap p el l a n t a s requ ired u nd er OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 (a) (5) a nd (d ) relating to theOn ap p eal f ro m a c riminal c o nv ic tio n, w e view the ev id enc e in the light
mo st f av o rable to su p p o rt the j u ry’ s v erd ic t, and the d ef e nd a nt no lo nger enj o ys a presu m p tio n o f inno c enc e. W e d o no t w eigh the ev id enc e o r j u d ge the c r e d ibility o f t he w itnesses, bu t d etermine o nly w hether the
ev id enc e a u tho riz e d t h e j u ry to f ind the d e f

end ant gu ilty o f the c r imes beyo nd a r easo nable do u bt in ac c o rd anc e w ith the stand ard set f o rth in Ja cks o n v . Vi

rgi n i a , 443 U. S. 307 (9 9 Sc t 27 81 , 6 1 LEd 2d 56 0) (1 9 7 9 )

.
Pa di lla

- Ga rci a v . S ta te , 37 2 Ga. A p p . 9 , 9 ( 9 0 3 SE2d 6 80) (2024) (c itatio ns o mitted ).
So v iew e d , the ev id enc e s ho w s that T abitha W illiams- M u rd o c k ( “ Tabitha” ) w as married to M ark M u rd o c k (“ M u rd o c k” ) and they shared a r esid enc e o n R iley Ro ad

. W hile married to M u rd o c k , Tabitha began o perat i n g a g r ou p ho me w here she met
ap p ellant. I nitially, T abitha and ap p ellant were merely f r iend s bu t ev entu ally bec ame inv o l v ed in a n o n- again, o f f

- again ro mantic relatio nship

. At t imes, ap p ellant w o u ld
resid e in t he Riley Ro ad resid enc e w ith Tabitha and M u rd oc k - so metimes as a tenant

w ho p aid rent and , at o ther times, as a gu est f o r extend ed p erio d s o f

time.
On the ev ening o f Oc to ber 31 , 201 8 and e xtend ing into the early mo rning ho u rs

o f N o v ember 1 , 201 8, ap p e llant w as at the Riley Ro ad resid enc e. A lso p resent in the

p r o b a tio n rev o catio n matter. Theref ore, issu es re l a t i n g t o t h e r e v o ca t i o n o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s p ro batio n are no t p ro p e rly bef o re this c ou rt and are no t c o nsid ered herein.

2h o m e were T abitha, M u rd o c k , Tabitha’ s ad u lt so n, and Tabitha’ s ad u lt bro t h e r .

Tabitha and a p p ellant w ent to the liqu o r sto re to p u rc hase so me alc o ho l j u st b ef o re the

sto re c lo s ed f

o r t he ev ening. On the w a y b ac k to the r e sid enc e, Tabitha and ap p ellant began argu ing whic h resu lted in ap p ellant break ing t he b o ttle o f alc o ho l that Tabitha
had j u st p u rc hased o n c e they retu rned to the garage o f the Riley R oad resid enc e. W hen the tw o entered the resid enc e, Tabitha’ s bro ther w a s u p s tairs, her so n w as in

a gu est ro o m and M u rd oc k w a s d o z i n g o n the c o u c h in the liv ing r o o m. Tabitha sat d o w n at the d ining r o o m t able and began listening to mu sic o n a small p o rtab l e
sp eak e r. The ar g u m ent betw een Tabitha and ap pellant intensif ied a f ter they had been
in the resid enc e f

o r a sho rt time. A p p ellant then to o k the po rta b l e s p e a k er f ro m the
table and hit Tabitha w ith it b y slamming it into her head

. Tabitha c ried o u t t o M u r d o c k , telling Mu rd o c k that ap p ell a n t h ad j u st stru c k her in the head

. M u rd o c k began t o rise f

ro m the c o u c h and p ic k ed u p a tw o - by- f o u r w o o d en bo ard that w as near him. Ap p ellant saw M ur d o c k b e g i nning to rise f ro m the c o u c h with the bo ard and

ru shed t o w ard M u rd o c k

. A pp ellant w as able to w r estle the bo ard aw ay f r o m M u rd o c k

3and u sed the bo ard to strik e M u rd o c k in the head sev e ral times. M u rd o c k yelled o u t

f o r Tabitha to c all 9 1 1 bu t w as o therw ise rend ered u nc o nsc io u s o r inc o herent.
A s the alterc atio n b e t we e n Mu rd o c k and ap p e llant began, Tabitha r etriev ed her

so n, and retreated to a b ac k b ed r o o m w here she lo c k ed and barric ad ed the d o o r. Onc e saf ely in the bac k bed ro o m , T abitha began c a lling f amily members and 91 1

. W hen law
enf o rc ement o f

f ic ers arriv ed at the R iley Ro ad resid enc e, ther e w as initially no
resp o nse to their k no c k i n g o n the d o or. Of f ic ers mad e f

o r c ef u l entry af

ter lo o k ing
thro u gh the w ind o w and s eeing M u rd o c k laying on the f lo o r w ith su bstantial amo u nts

o f blo o d p o o li n g aro u nd him. Onc e o f f ic ers gained entry, t hey gathered ev eryo ne in
the ho me and e sc o rted t hem f ro m the resid enc e so that EM S perso nnel c o u ld enter and begin treating M urd o c k. A p p ellant w a s no t lo c ated w ith i n the resid enc e at the
time the o f

f ic ers entered

. The o ff

ic ers a nd EM S p erso nnel all saw w hat they d esc ribed

as a w o o d en bo ard generally near the lo c atio n w here M u r d o c k f ell.
M u rd o c k w as transp o rted to a ho s p ital w here he rec eiv ed 1 8 to tal stitc hes to his
head

. Law enf

o rc e ment o f

f ic ers c o ntinu ed their inv estigatio n b y t a k ing all o f the o ther

o c c u pants to their statio n to be f u rther inter v i e w e d b y inv estigato rs. W hen o f f ic e rs transp o rted the o ther o c c u p ants o f the ho me bac k to the Riley Ro ad resid enc e a f ew

4ho u rs later, t h e y w ere ask ed by Tabitha to again searc h the ho me and e nsu re that

ap p ellant w as no t t here. Up on the sec o nd a ry searc h, of f ic ers f ou nd ap p ellant hid ing

u nd er a blank et i n t h e u p stairs bo nu s ro o m o f the ho me. A p p ellant was tak en into

c u s to d y at that time.
A p p e l l a n t w as ind ic ted f o r aggrav ated assau lt

- f

amily v io lenc e f

o r strik ing
M u r d o c k w ith t he w o o d e n bo a rd

. H e was also ind ic t e d f o r simp le battery

- f

amily

v io lenc e f

o r s trik ing Tabith a w i t h the p o r table sp eak er. A f ter a trial, a j u ry f

o u nd
ap p ellant gu ilty o f

bo th o f f enses. I. 4 04 ( b ) E v i den ce Prio r to trial, the State filed sev eral d if f erent no tic es o f intent to intro d u c e

ev id enc e u nd er OCGA § 24- 4- 404 (b). The State p ro v id ed sev eral d if f erent no tic es that pu t the ap p ellant o n no tic e o f d o z e n s o f d if f erent o ff enses o r ev ents. The trial

c o u rt heard the mo t i o n j u s t p rio r to trial b ased u p o n the State’ s “ Su p p lemental
N o tic e” that listed nine prio r ac ts. As no ted by the trial c ou rt in her written o rd er o n the issu e and as ref

lec ted in the trial t ransc rip t, the State elec ted t o p ro cee d o n six

su c h inc id ents. T he trial c o u rt f o u nd that three o f the inc id ents w ere inad missible

5u nd er Ru le 404 (b) b ut allo wed t h r e e o f the inc id ents to be ad mitted

. A p p ellant

c o mp lains o n ap p eal abo u t o nly o ne o f the allo w ed extrinsic ac ts.
A p p ellant argu e s o n ap p eal t hat the trial c o u rt erred in allo wing an e xtrinsic a ct that o cc u rred in J a nu a r y 201 4. I n that c a se, a d if ferent v ic tim w ho w as no t inv o lv ed

w ith the ins t ant c a se, J

. B ., testif ied that s he and ap p ellant dated fo r a sho rt time in
201 3

- 201 4. They e v entu a lly mo v ed in to gether. On t he d ate in qu estio n , ap p ellant
bec ame irratio nal and to ld J

. B

. she w as no t allo w ed to leav e her ro o m. She ev entu a lly
had t o u se the restro o m and as she w a s exiting the restro o m, ap pellant co nf ro nted her.
H e p ressed her head into a bathro o m mirro r and p u nc hed her in the f ac e. A p p ellant

t h e n p u s hed J

. B

. into a bed ro o m and go t o n to p o f her, a ttemp ting t o su f f o c ate her

w ith a p illo w . A p p ellant ev entu ally remo v ed the p illo w and g o t o ff o f J

. B

. A fter
ap p ellant c o mp leted the assau lt against J

. B

. , he f o rc ed her to sit o n a c ou c h and no t

mo v e w hile he nap p ed , wak ing o c casio nally to ensu r e that J

. B. had no t mo v ed

. J

. B

.

w as ev e ntu ally able to reac h law enf o rc eme n t b y p ho ne. Of

f ic ers r esp o nd ed and
arrested ap p ellant. A p p ellant was c o nv ic t ed v ia a p lea a greement o f the o f f ense o f battery against J

. B

. When this ev id e nc e was p resented t o the j u r y at trial, the trial

6c o u rt gav e the j u ry a limiting instru c tio n p rio r to J

. B

. tak ing the stand , inf orming the j u ry o f the limited p u rp o se f o r whic h they w e r e to c o nsid e r the ev id enc e f ro m J

. B

. 2
To hav e ev id enc e of o ther ac ts be d eemed ad missible u nd er OCGA § 24- 4- 404 (b), the State is requ ired to establish that (1 ) the ev id enc e o f extrinsic , o r o ther, a c ts is relev ant to an issu e o ther than the d e f

end a nt’ s c harac ter, (2) the p ro bativ e v alu e o f the o ther ac ts
ev id enc e is no t s u b s t antially o u tw eighed by the d anger o f u nf air p rej ud ic e a s requ ired by Ru le 403, and (3) there is s u f f ic ient p ro of

f o r a j u ry to fi n d b y a p rep o nd eranc e o f the ev id enc e that the d ef e nd a nt
c o mmitted the p rio r ac t in qu estio n.

W ri ght v . S ta te , 36 2 Ga. Ap p. 86 7 , 87 7 (2) ( 8 7 0 S E2d 484) ( 2022) (c itatio n and
p u nc tu atio n o mitted )

. “[W e] rev iew the ad missio n o f Ru le 404 ( b) ev id enc e and the
p ro p e r a p p lic atio n o f the Ru le 403 balanc ing test f o r abu s e o f d isc retio n, and the trial

c o u rt’ s d ec isio n w ill no t be d istu rbed u nless there is a clear abu s e o f d isc retio n. ” Jo nes

v . S ta te , 301 Ga. 544, 548 ( 2) (802 SE2d 234) (201 7 ). W ith these p r inc ip les in mind ,

w e tu r n to ap p ellant’ s argu ments.

2 A s no ted in Jern i

ga n v . S ta te , 357 Ga. A p p . 41 5, 426 (2) (a) (ii) (848 SE2d 7 07 ) (2020), the p ro per u se o f a limiting instru c tio n in c o nnec tio n w ith a n y e v id enc e ad mitted u nd er Ru le 404 ( b) red u c es the “risk o f any u nf air p rej u d ic e resu lting f

ro m the ad missio n o f” extrinsic ev id enc e.
7A p p e l l a n t mak es no argu ment to su ggest t hat ad missio n o f the extrinsic

ev id enc e w as imp r o p er u nd er the third p r o ng. The State a d mitted c ertif ied c o p ies o f

c o n v i c tio ns f

o r all o f the extrinsic ac ts and a p p ellant has no t argu ed bef o re the trial

c o u rt o r this c o u rt that the State f ailed to establish t hat he w a s the p erp etrato r o f the
extrinsic o f

f enses. Theref

o re, we w ill f

o cu s o u r a nalysis o n the f

irst tw o p ro ngs o f the
Ru le 404 (b) test. S ee Ho o d v. S ta te , 309 Ga. 49 3, 49 9 (2) (84 7 S E 2 d 1 7 2) (2020) (“ [ A p p ellant] d o es no t argu e that the State f ailed to m eet its bu rd en o n the third p art

o f the test; thu s, w e ad d r ess o nly the f irst and sec o nd p a rts” ).
The State of

fered the e v id enc e relating to t he J anu ary 201 4 inc id ent to p ro v e intent. 3 The f

irst p ro n g o f the test f

o r ad missibility relates to relev anc y as d ef ined

u nd er OCGA § 24- 4- 401

. This p ro ng inv o lv es a “ binary qu estio n - ev id enc e is either
relev ant o r it is no t. ” W

ri ght v . S ta te , 36 2 Ga. Ap p . 86 7 , 87 7 ) ( 2 ) (87 0 SE2d 484) (2022) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ). W here e xtrinsic ev id enc e is o f f ered to
p ro v e intent, “ its relev anc e is determined by c o mp aring the d ef end ant’ s state o f mind

3 The State argu ed that the ev id enc e w ent to m o t iv e. H o w ev er, the trial c o urt f o u nd that the ev id enc e w as ad missible t o p ro v e intent. I n the w ritten o r d er d enying ap p ellant’ s mo tio n fo r new trial, the trial c o u rt no ted that the J anu ary 201 4 inc id ent w as ad mitted to establish mo tiv e. H o w ev e r, bec au se the trial c o urt initially f ou nd that the ev id enc e w as ad missible to establish intent, w e w ill examine t he ev id enc e o n that basis.
8in p erp etrating bo th the extrinsic and c harged o f f enses. Thu s, w here t he s tate o f mind
requ ired f o r the c harged and e xtrinsic o ff ense is the same, t he f

irst p ro ng o f the Ru le
404 ( b) test is satisf

ied

. ” McMi

lla n v . S t a te , 357 Ga. A p p . 344, 348- 349 (850 SE2d 7 7 9 ) (2020).
A p p e l l a n t w as c harged w ith b o th aggrav ated assau lt

- f amily v io lenc e against
M u r d o c k and battery

- f

a mily v io lenc e against Tabitha in the p r esent c ase. The state

o f m ind f or battery a s c o m mitted in the extrinsic ac t inv o lv ing J

. B

. and t hat f o r w hic h
he w as o n trial inv o lv ing Tabitha w as id entic al. Thu s, the f irst p ro ng w as satisf

ied

. T h e s e c o nd p ro ng is essentially the ap plic atio n o f OCGA § 24- 4- 403 to th e extrinsic ev id en c e o f o ther ac ts. T he s ec ond p ro ng requ ires the trial c o u rt to

“ und ertak e in eac h c a se a c o nsid ered ev alu atio n o f the p ro f f ered j u stif

ic atio n f o r the
ad missio n o f

su c h ev id enc e and mak e an ind ep end ent d eterminatio n o f w hether the
p ro bativ e v alu e o f t he ev id enc e is su b stantially o u tw e ighed by any o f the Ru l e 403 f ac to rs. ” W

ri ght , 36 2 Ga. A p p . a t 87 7 (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ). “ Fac to rs

to be co nsid ered in d etermining the p ro bativ e v alu e o f other ac t ev id enc e o f f ered to
p ro v e intent inc lu d e its o v erall similarity to t he charged c rime, its t e m p o ral

remo teness, and the p ro sec u to rial need f o r it. ” Ho o d , 30 9 G a . at 5 01 (c itatio n and

9p u nc tu atio n omit te d )

. W hile the f irst p ro ng o f the t est f

o r a d missibility inv o lv es a binary c o nc ep t, the sec o nd pro ng is mo re su bj ec tiv e and w hether the State meets its

o bligatio ns u nd er the sec ond p ro ng d ep end s a great d eal o n the f ac ts o f th e c ase.

“ [ T]here is no mec hani c al so lu tio n f o r this b alanc ing t e s t. ” S ta t e v . Jo n es , 29 7 Ga.

1 56 , 1 63 (3) (7 7 3 SE2d 1 7 0) (201 5).
A s to the sec ond p ro ng of the Ru le 404 (b) test, the trial c o u rt w as au tho riz ed

to f ind that the p ro bati v e v a l u e o f the extrinsic e v id enc e w as no t su bstantially

o u tw eighed b y the d ang e r o f u nf air p rej u d ic e. Ru le 403 is a n extrao rd inary remed y

w hic h sho u ld be u sed o nly sp aringly. McMi lla n v . S ta te , 357 Ga. A p p . at 350 (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mi tt ed ). Ev en in c o nnec tio n with an a nalysis u nd e r R ule 404 (b),

w hen d etermining whether the ev id enc e sho u ld be exc lu d ed u nd er the sec o nd p ro ng,

“ we lo ok at the ev id e nc e in a light mo st f av o rable to its ad m issio n , m a x i m i z ing its
p ro bativ e v alu e and m inimiz ing its u nd u e p r ej u d ic ial ef f ec t. ” I d

. “ I n w eighi n g the
p ro bativ e v al u e o f o th er a c ts e v id enc e, a c ou rt may c o nsid er a nu mber o f f ac to rs, inc lu d ing (1 ) p ro sec u to rial need , (2) o v erall similarity o f the o ther a c ts a nd t h e a c t s

c harged , and (3) the temp oral r emo teness o f the o ther ac ts. ” W ri ght , 36 1 Ga. A p p . at
87 7 (2) (c itatio n and p unc tu atio n o mitted ).

10I n ap p lying these princ ip les to the fac ts o f this c a se, t he trial c o u rt f o u nd that
ap p ellant had p lac e d intent in issu e by enteri n g a p lea o f no t gu ilty to the c harged

o f f enses. Ho o d , 309 Ga. at 49 9. The trial c o u r t a lso no ted that the ev id enc e, at least as

to c ertain elements o f the c harged c harges, w as c irc u mstantial. Fu rther, the trial c o urt

no ted that e v en t h e State a c k no w led ged that T abitha had p rev io usly lied to law
enf o rc ement w itnesses w ho u ltimately testif ied in this c a se. The trial c o urt also f o u nd
that the p ro sec u to rial need f o r the extrinsic ev id enc e w as mu c h higher in this c ase,
g i v e n t he p ro trac ted histo ry betw een a p p ellant a nd the v ic tims in this c ase a s d o c u mented by the law enf o rc e ment o ff

ic er who testif

ied a s a w itness f

o r ap p ellant.
A p p ellant w ou ld hav e us f ind that d issimilarities b etw een the c harged o f f enses and the extrinsic ev id enc e and that t he p assage o f f ou r years betw een the extrinsic a ct and the c harged c rimes sho u ld be d eterminativ e. Fu rther, ap p ellant u rges u s to f ind
that bec au se o ther extrinsic ac ts w ere p ro p erly a d mitted , that the need f or the J anu ary
201 4 inc id ent w as red u c ed

. H o w ev er, as no ted p rev io u sly, the sec ond p ro ng d o es no t lend itself t o m ec hanic al ap plic atio n. Tabitha’ s c red ibility w a s a c ritic al issu e in the

c ase, partic u l a r l y i n light of the f ac t that ap p ellant c alled a law e nf o rc ement w itness

to testif y that Tabitha had p rev io u sly f alsely rep o rted a c rime a n d t h a t sh e had no

11c red ibility w ith t he o f f ic er. The J anu ary 201 4 inc id en t w as the o nly extrinsic a ct

o f f ered w hic h inv o lv ed a v ic tim w ho d id no t resid e in the Riley Ro ad r esid enc e. The analysis u nd er the sec o nd p ro ng mu st inv o lv e a c ase- sp ec if ic a nalysis a nd w e c anno t
say that the t rial c o u rt abu s ed its d isc retio n in f ind ing that the p ro bativ e v alu e o f the J a n u ary 201 4 extrinsic ac t w as no t su bstantially o u tw e ighed by the d anger o f u nf air
p rej u dic e u nd er the f

ac ts o f this c ase. II. S peedy tri a l i s s u es A p p ellant next argu es that the tri a l c o u rt erred in d enying his mo tio n f o r d isc harge and ac qu ittal based up on c o nstitu tio nal sp e ed y trial princ ip les. The trial

c o u rt heard a p p ella nt’ s mo tio n and d enied the same v ia a w ritten o rd er. A p p ellant
argu es that the trial c o u rt erred in d enying his mo tio ns f o r d is c h arge and ac qu ittal
based u p o n c o nstitu tio nal sp eed y trial p rinc ip les bu t w e d isagree.

“ T he United States Co nstitu t io n gu arantees that, ‘ [i]n all c riminal
p ro sec u tio ns, the ac cu sed shall enj o y the right t o a s p e ed y and p ublic trial,’ U

. S.
Co nst. A mend

. V I. Lik ew ise, the Geo rgia Co nstitu tio n p r o tec ts t his same r ight ‘[i]n

c riminal cases, the d ef

end ant shall hav e a p u b l ic and sp eed y trial[. ]’ Ga. Co nst. o f

121 9 83, A rt. I , Sec

. I , Par. XI (a). ” Hen ders o n v . S t a te , 31 0 Ga. 231 , 234 (2) (850 SE2d

1 52) (2020).
A c o nstitu t io nal sp eed y - trial c l ai m is ev alu ated und er the tw o - p art f ramew o rk s et o u t in Ba rker v . W in go , 407 U. S. 51 4 (9 2 SCt 21 82, 33 LEd 2d 1 01 ) (1 9 72). First, th e trial c o urt mu st c o nsid er w hether the length o f time betw een t he d ef end a nt’ s a rrest and trial is su ff ic iently lo ng to b e c o nsid ered p resu mp tiv ely p rej u d ic ial. I f no t, the s p eed y- trial c laim f ails at the thresho ld

. A d elay o f o ne year o r mo re is typ ic ally p resu med to be p rej u d ic ial.

. . . W h e n t hat thresho ld is c ro ssed , t he trial c o u rt p ro c e e d s t o the sec ond p art o f the framew o rk , ap p lying a
c o ntext- f o c u sed , f o u r- fac to r balanc ing test t o d etermine w hether the d ef end ant w as d enied the right to a sp eed y trial. These f o u r f ac to rs a re (1 ) the length of the d elay; ( 2) the reaso ns f or it; (3) the def

end ant’ s assertio n o f his right to a sp eed y t r ial; and (4) p rej u d ic e t o t he d ef end ant.
Myers v . S t

a te , 37 0 Ga. A p p . 6 43, 645 (2) (89 8 SE2d 834) (2024) (c itatio ns and
p u nc tu atio n o mitted ). This c o urt mu st ev alu ate the c ase u nd er the t ests e stablished
in Ba rker and D oggett v . U ni ted S ta tes , 505 U. S. 6 47 (1 1 2 SCt 26 86 , 1 20 LEd 2d 520) (1 9 9 2).
A p p lic atio n o f this test ‘ is c o mmitted p rinc ip ally to t he d isc retio n o f the trial co u rt, and this Co u rt has a limited ro le in rev iew ing the trial c o u rt’ s d ec isio n. ’ ‘ [W ] e mu st ac cep t the f ac tu al f ind ings o f the trial c o u rt unless

13they are c learly e rro neo u s, and we m u st ac c ep t the ultimate c o nc lu sio n

o f the trial c o u rt u nless it amo u nts to an abu s e o f d isc retio n[. ]’

La b b ee v. S ta t

e , 3 6 2 Ga. A p p . 558, 56 1 (86 9 SE2d 5 20) (2022) (c itatio n and
p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).

a . Thres h o ld i nqu i ry - pres u mpti

v e prej u di ce

“ Sp eed y trial rights attac h at t he time o f arrest o r f o r mal arraignment,

w hic hev er is earlier. ” La b b ee , 36 2 Ga. A p p . at 56 2 (c itatio n o mitted ). A p p ellant w as

a r r e s t e d o n No v e mber 2, 201 8. The trial c o u rt heard ap pellant’ s mo tio ns fo r d isc harge
and a c qu ittal o n Oc to b e r 21 , 2020. There w ere a p p ro ximately 23 mo nths and tw o

w eek s betw een t he d a te o f ap p ellant ’ s arrest and the hearing o n his mo tio ns. Giv en

t h a t a o ne y ear delay is typ ic ally p r esu m ed to be p r ej ud ic ial in this c o ntext and t h e State c onc ed es that the d elay w as p resu mp t iv ely p re j u d i cial, w e f ind that t here w as
p resu mp t iv e p rej ud ic e in this c ase. See Go i n s v. S ta te , 306 Ga. 55, 57 (2) (b) (829 SE2d
89 ) (201 9 ) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ). W e mu st no w tu rn to the sec o nd step in the Ba rker- Do

ggett analysis.
b

. Ba rker- D o

ggett ba la n ci

n g tes t

14There are f o u r c o nsid eratio ns that mu st be inc lu d ed in the sec o nd stage o f the
Ba rker- D o

ggett analysis. “ No o ne f

ac to r is ‘ either a nec e ssary o r s u f f ic ient co nd itio n

to the f ind ing of a d ep riv atio n o f t he right o f s p eed y trial. ’ ” R u ffi n v. S ta te , 284 Ga. 52, 55 (2) (b) ( 6 6 3 SE2d 1 89 ) (2008) ( c itatio n o mitted )

. Ad d itio nally, the f o ur f ac to rs id entif ied by Ba rker , D o

ggett , and their p ro geny do no t rep r esent an exhau stiv e list o f
f ac to rs to be c o nsid ered – “ they ‘ hav e no talismanic qu ali t i e s ’ a n d ‘ mu st be

c o nsid ered to gether w ith su c h o ther c irc u mstanc es as may be r e lev a n t ’ g i v e n the animating p rinc ip les behind the sp eed y trial gu arantee. ” Ru ffi n , 284 Ga. at 56 (2) ( c itatio n o mitted ). I nstead o f relying u p o n so me mathematic f o rmu la, c o u rts a r e

c harged w ith the task o f engaging in a “ d if f ic u lt and sensitiv e b alanc ing p ro c e s s”

w hic h d emand s t hat sp eed y trial c ases be ap p ro a c hed ind iv id u ally, based o n the f ac ts

o f that p artic ular c ase. I d

. [T]he f ou r f ac t o rs that f

o rm t h e c o re o f the c o nstitu tio nal sp eed y trial balanc ing test are: (i) w hether d elay bef o re trial w as u nc o m mo nly lo ng, (ii) w hether the go v e rnment o r the c riminal d ef end ant is mo re to blame f o r that dela y, ( i i i ) w hether, in d u e co u rse, the d ef end a nt asserted the right to a s p eed y trial, and (iv ) w hether h e o r she su ff ered p rej u d ic e as the d elay’ s resu lt.

15S

hri v er v . S ta te , 37 1 Ga. A p p . 580, 583 ( 9 01 SE2d 7 21 ) (2024) ( citatio n o mitted ). A s
p art o f this analysis u nd e r the sec o nd p ro ng, “ [ d ] e l i berate delay is w eighed heav ily against the State. D elay resu lting f ro m ‘n e u t ral’ c au ses, su ch as negligenc e, has lighter

w eight. Of c o u rse, d elay c au s ed by the d e f ense w eighs a gainst the d ef end ant. ” Sosn i

a k

v . Sta te , 29 2 Ga. 35, 41 (3) (7 34 SE2d 36 2) (201 2) (c itatio n o mitted ).
i

. Len gth o f dela y a n d c a u s e o f the dela y The trial c o u rt f

o u nd that the d elay in ap p ellant’ s case being tried co nsisted o f

tw o d if f erent, id e ntif

iable p e rio d s o f time. T he trial c o u rt f o u n d t hat the delay that

o c c u r red betw e en the d ate o f ap p ellant’ s a rrest and M a rc h 13, 2020 w a s “ no nintentio nal ro u tine d elay in reac hing the case in terms w hic h is a ttribu table to cro w d ed
d o c k ets c o m p eting f

o r t he limited trial d ates. ” The t r ial c ou rt attribu ted that d elay to the State bu t o nly lightly, a f ind ing w hic h we d eem ap p ro p riate. See La b b ee , 36 2 Ga.
A p p . at 56 3. There was no c red ible ev id enc e p resented and no argu ments mad e that
the initial d elay w as the p ro d u c t o f intentio nal a c ts by the State. 4 H o w ev er, the

4 D u ring the time that ap p ellant w as self

- rep resented , he argu ed to the trial c o u rt that the State d elayed the c ase to c re ate a v ic tim; an allegatio n the trial c o urt p ro p e rly f o u n d t o be no nsensic al as id entif iable v ic tims w ere id entif ied in t he initial arrest w a r r ants issu ed fo r ap p ellant’ s arrest. Ap p ellant also argu ed that the State d elayed p ro d u c ing d isc o v ery bu t the trial c o u rt f o u n d that the State pro d u c ed d isc ov ery resp o nses w ithin eight d ays o f a d isc o v ery requ est being f iled by ap pellant’ s 16u l t i m ate resp o nsibility to bring an ac c used p erso n to trial lies w ith the go vernme n t
.

“ Altho u gh this t

yp e of u nintentio nal d elay is r e lativ ely neu tral o r benign, it still mu st be w eighted against the [S]tate. ” Tho ma s v . S ta te , 29 6 Ga. A p p . 231 , 235 ( 2) (b) (6 7 4 SE2d 9 6) (2009 ) (c itatio n o mitted ).
B e tw een Marc h 1 3, 2020 and extend ing into 2021 , Geo rgia w a s in the p eak o f
the ramif ic atio ns o f the COV I D

- 1 9 p and emic

. The ju d ic ial emergenc y o r ders issu ed by the Chief J u s tic e o f t he Geo rgia Su p reme Co u rt ef fec tiv e ly banned j u ry trials
thro u gho u t Geo rgia, beginning in M arc h 2020 a nd f ully end ing o n J u ne 30, 2021

. 5 See
Fo rema n v . S t

a te , 37 1 Ga. A p p . 838, 840 n. 6 (9 0 3 SE2d 303) (2 0 2 4 )

. T h i s p erio d o f
time was the sec o nd id entif iable p e rio d cited by the t rial c ou rt in its analysis. I n regard

to the d elay c au sed by t he p and emic and related j u d ic ial emergenc y o rd ers, the trial

c o u rt f o und that t h o se d elays were c au sed b y the go vernment bu t f o u nd t hat it w as

p rio r c o u nsel. T heref

o re, t here w a s no c r e d i ble argu ment p resented to s u ggest that any d elay in this c ase w as the p ro d u c t o f the State’ s a ttemp t to g ain a tac tic al ad v antage.

5 “ On M arc h 1 4, 2020,

. . . c iting the p u b lic health emergenc y p resented by the COV I D

- 1 9 p and emic , Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia Chief Ju stic e H aro ld M elto n issu ed an o rd er d ec la r i n g a s tatew id e j u d ic ial emergenc y. ” Co pela n d v . C

o pela n d , 36 1 Ga. A p p . 125, 1 27 , n. 3 (86 3 SE2d 509 ) (2021 ). “ The j u d ic ial emergen c y o r d er , amo ng o ther things, su sp e nd ed j u r y trials that had no t yet c ommenc ed ” and “ thereaf ter w as extend ed sev eral times w ith mo d if ic atio ns. ” La b b ee , 36 2 Ga. A p p . at 56 0.
17l i g h tly a t tribu table to the State. W hile w e agree that the “ State” in thi s r e g a r d

inc lu d es a ll go v ernmental a c to rs, t o inc lu d e bo t h p ro sec u to rs and c o u rts, a p and emic
is a “ c atastro p hic and u niqu e ev ent beyo nd either p arty’ s c o ntro l. ” La b b e , 36 2 Ga.
A p p . at 56 6 (c itatio n o mitted ). N either p arty is resp o nsible f or the d elays c au sed by
the COV I D

- 1 9 pand emic

. There are so me d elays whic h are no t attribu table to either
p arty and a p p ellant has no t id entif ied any ev id enc e to su ggest that ju r y t r i a l s in
D o u glas Co u nty c ou ld hav e resu med m o r e qu ic k ly than they w ere o r t hat the j u d ic ial
emergenc y d ec laratio n w as inap p ro p riate. See La b b e e , 36 2 Ga. A p p . at 5 6 6

. W hile the
trial c o urt f

o u nd t hat the d elay that oc c urred d u r i n g t h e existenc e o f the j u d ic ial
emergenc y w as lightly attribu table to the State, w e f ind ou r analysis anno u nc ed in
La b b ee to be mo re p e rsu asiv e; d elay d uring the j u d ic ial emergenc y d ec lared d u ring the
COV I D

- 1 9 p and emic sho u ld be c o nsid e red a neu t r al f ac to r u nd er the Ba rker- D o ggett f ramew o rk , no t w eighted against either p arty. S ta te v . Ada ms , 36 4 Ga. A p p . 86 4, 86 8 (2) (b) (i) (87 6 SE2d 7 1 9 ) (2022) (c itatio n o mitted ).
The trial co u rt also p ro perly rej ec ted the State’ s argu m ents relat i n g t o a n y d e l ay being attr i b u table to the d o z ens of mo tio ns f iled by ap p ellant, bo th w hile he w as
rep resented b y c o unsel and d u ring a p erio d o f time t hat he w as self

- rep resented

. The

18trial c o urt f

o u nd that the maj ority o f tho se mo tio ns w ere ad d ressed su mmarily by the
trial c o u rt w itho ut the nec essity o f a hearing and that the f iling o f tho se mo tio ns d id

no t d elay the p ro c eed ings.
Und er the f

ac ts o f this c ase, w e w ill no t d istu rb t he trial c o u rt’ s f ind ings relativ e

to these f irst tw o f ac to rs o nly lightly being c harged a gainst the State. See S hri v er , 37 1
Ga. A p p . at 585.
i i. As s erti on o f t he ri ght
N ext, the Ba rker- D o

ggett analysis r e qu ires u s to c o nsid er w he t h e r ap p ellant timely asserted his c o nstitu tio nal right to a sp eed y trial. Ju s t ov er o ne year af ter he w as ind ic ted , ap p ellant f

iled a d o c u ment he e ntitled as a mo tio n to d ismiss ind ic tment in

w hic h he asserted that he had been d enied his c o nstitu tio nal right to a sp eed y trial. A t the time this d o cu ment was f i led , ap p ellant w as rep resented by c o u nsel.
A p p ro ximately six w eek s later, w hile c o ntinu ing t o be rep resented by c o u nsel,
ap p ellant f

iled a sec ond mo tio n seek ing to d ismiss the ind ic tmen t b a sed u p o n an alleged v io latio n o f his co nstitu tio nal right t o a sp eed y trial. The trial c o urt d ismissed
bo t h o f these mo tio ns, f

ind ing that they w e re f

iled by ap p ellant w hile he c o ntinu ed to be rep resented by c o unsel and t hat the c o u r t w o u ld no t c o nsid er tho se mo tio ns f iled

19by a rep r esented p arty. 6 Co u nsel w as allo w ed to w ithd r a w a f e w week s later. A p p ellant
then f iled ano ther series o f mo tio ns to d ismiss w herein he alleged v io latio ns o f his

c o nstitu tio nal rig h t t o a sp e ed y t r ial. The trial c ou rt c o nd uc ted a hearing o n that

mo tio n and d enied the same.
D u ring t he p erio d o f time that ap p ellant w as self -rep resented , he also f

iled w hat
p u rp o rted to be a m otio n f o r a sp eed y trial o n statu to ry gro u nd s. The trial c o urt d ismissed t hat mo tio n as it w as no t filed d u ring t he term o f c o u rt in w hic h the c ase

w as ind ic ted o r the f

o llo wing term as requ ired by OCGA § 1 7

- 7

- 17 0. 7
A p p e l lant w as arrested o n N o v ember 2, 201 8 and w a s ind ic ted o n J anu ary 4 , 201 9

. H e w as arraigned o n Febru ary 1 1 , 201 9

. Und er this c o m p o nent of t he Ba rker6 Su bsequ ent to the trial c o u rt’ s o r d ers being entered , th e G eo r gia Su p reme C o u r t d e c id ed Jo h n s o n v . S ta te , 31 5 Ga. 87 6 (885 SE2d 7 25) (2023) w hic h held that trial c o u rts hav e the au th o r ity, bu t no t t he o bligatio n, to rec o gniz e a f iling by a rep resented ind iv id u al w h o i s f o rmally rep resented by c ou nsel at the t ime o f f iling.
“ G iv e n the lo gistic a l and legal p ro blems hybrid rep resentatio n can cau se, w e exp ec t that c o u rts w ill exerc ise t his disc retio n only rarely, as w hen trial co u nsel has f ailed to ac t w ithin the p resc ribed time p erio d to preserv e t he d ef end ant’ s right to ap p eal and a p ro se filing w o u ld p reserv e that r ight. A nd w hen a co u rt c ho o ses to rec o gniz e su c h a f iling, it sho u ld mak e that e xerc ise o f d isc r etio n c lear o n the rec o rd .” Jo hn s o n , 31 5 Ga. at 87 7

. H o w ev er, Jo hn s o n d o es no t mand ate that trial j ud ges alw a y s r e c o gniz e d o c u ments f

iled by rep resented ind iv id u als, o nly that they hav e the au tho rity to d o so w hen ap p ro p riate.

7 The mo tio n f

or a statu to ry sp eed y trial w as f iled o n J u ly 2, 2020.
20D o

ggett analysis , the qu estio n is no t o nly w hether ap p ellant asserted his right to a
sp eed y trial, the qu estio n also inv o lv es “ a c lo se examinatio n o f the p ro c ed u ral histo ry

o f the c ase w ith p artic u lar a ttentio n to the timing , f o r m, and vigo r o f the ac c u sed ’ s d emand s to b e t ried im m e d i ately. ” C a s h v . S ta te , 307 Ga. 51 0, 51 7 (2) (b) (iii) (837
SE2d 280) (201 9 ) (c itatio n o mitted ).
A p p ellant d id no t p r esent a v alid d emand f o r a sp eed y trial u ntil A p ril 20, 2020,

mo re than o ne year af

ter his ind ic t ment. He nev er f iled a valid d emand f

o r a sp eed y trial u nd er OCGA § 1 7 -7

- 1 7 0. “ Ou r c ases ho ld that an extend ed d elay in asserting the right to a sp ee d y t r i a l sho u ld no rmally be w e ighed hea v i ly a gainst t he d ef

end ant. ”
C a s h , 307 Ga. at 51 7 ( c itatio ns o mitted ) (emp hasis in o riginal). Ho wev er, u nd er the

u niqu e f ac ts of this c ase, w e f

ind that the d elay in asserting a v a lid d e mand sho u ld o nly
be w eighed lightly a gainst ap p ellant. The trial c o urt f o u nd that o ne o f ap pellant’ s
p rimary mo tiv atio ns in seek ing to hav e his initial ap p o inted c o u nsel dismissed w as his
d esire to p u rsu e a mo tio n to d ismiss based u p o n a v io latio n o f his s p eed y trial rights

w hic h c o u nse l elec ted no t to f ile. A lmo st immed iately u po n bec o ming self

rep resented , he asserted his rights in this regard

. H o wev er, that f iling w as no t mad e

u ntil mo re than o ne year had p assed f ro m his ind ic tment. “ ‘ A d ef end ant may assert

2 1his c o nstitu tio nal right to a s p eed y trial at any time af t er he is arrested ’ and ‘need no t

w ait u ntil ind ic tment. ’ ” C as h , 307 Ga. at 51 7 (c itatio n o mitted ). T heref o re, w e f ind
that this f ac to r sho u ld be w eighed against ap pellant, bu t o nly lightly.
i i i. P rej u di ce Finally, the Ba rker- D o

ggett analysis r equ ires u s to examine and w e igh any
p rej u dic e c au sed by the d elay in the p ro c eed ings. “ The f o u rth Ba rker f

ac to r inv o lv es three interests that the sp eed y trial right w as d esigned t o p ro tec t : ( i) p r ev enting

o p p ressiv e p retrial inc a rc eratio n; (ii) minimiz ing anxiety and c o nc ern o f the ac c u sed ; and (iii) limiting the p o ssibility that the d ef ense will be imp aired

. ” Myers v. S ta te , 37 0
Ga. A p p . 6 43, 6 48 (2) (b) (iv ) (89 8 SE2d 834) (2024) (c itatio n o mitted )

. “ Of these
f o rms o f p rej u d ic e , ‘ the mo st serio u s is the last, bec au se the inability of a d ef end ant ad equ ately t o prep are his c ase sk ew s the f airness o f the e ntire system. ’ ” L a b b e , 36 2
Ga. A p p . at 57 0 (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o m itted ).
I n this c ase, t here are no allegatio ns o f op p ressiv e p retrial d e t e n tio n as that
p hrase is und e rsto o d in this co ntext. A p p ellant no ted in his brief ing that the trial c o urt d id no t mak e an exp ress f

ind ing relating to o p p ressiv e p retrial d etentio n and , w itho u t
exp lanatio n, su mmariz e d that this f ac to r sho u ld be w e ighed heav ily against the State.

22H o w ev e r, ap p ellant f ailed to id entif

y any f ac ts w ithin the rec o rd to su gg e s t that
ap p ellant’ s inc arc erat i o n w a s so u ght and maintained w ith the intent to o p p ress
ap p ellant o r any asp ec t o f his d ef ense. I n the c o ntext o f the Ba rk e r- D o ggett analysis, “[a]nxiety and c o nc ern o f the

ac c used are alw ays p resent to so me extent, and thu s absent so me u nu su al sho w ing are

no t lik ely to be d eterminativ e in d ef end ant’ s f

av o r. ” Myers , 3 7 0 Ga. A p p . at 6 48 (c itatio n o mitted ). The trial c ou rt f o u nd that ap pellant’ s a nxiety and c o nc ern w as “ no

w o rse than any o ther inmate at the j ail. ” There has been no ev id en c e o r a r g u m ent
p resented to s u g g e s t t hat ap p ellant’ s anxiety o r co nc ern w a s unu su a l o r e xtreme o r that the trial c o u rt abu sed its d isc retio n in reac hing this c o nc lu sio n. The mo st imp o rtant interest u nd er the prej ud ic e f a c t o r to be c o nsid ered w hen examining p rej u d ic e is any imp airment o f the ac c u sed ’ s d ef ense. Ha rri

s o n v . Sta te , 31 1
Ga. A p p . 7 87 , 7 94 (3) (d ) (iii) (7 1 7 SE2d 303) (201 1 ).
The w eight giv en to t he p rej u d ic e f a c to r may bebo lstered if the d ef end ant can d emo nstrate so me ac tu al imp airment to his def ense in ad d itio n t o p rej u d ic e that is p resu med f ro m the passage o f time. Lik ew ise, the w eight giv en t o p resu med p rej u dic e may b e red u c ed o r
ev en eliminated if the State c an sho w that the d e f en s e has no t, in f

ac t, been su bstantially imp aired

.

23S ta te v . Po rter , 288 Ga. 5 24, 532 ( 2) (d ) (7 05 SE2d 6 36 ) (201 1). A pp ellant has no t

id entif ied any e v id enc e in the rec o rd to establish t hat his d ef ense w a s ac tu a lly imp aired by the d elay. The trial c o u rt f o u nd “ [t]here is no e vid enc e that su p p o r ts a f ind ing that the testimo ny o f w itnesses has been ad v ersely imp ac ted o r f o r any reaso n

ev id enc e w ill no t b e a v ailable f o r u se at t r i a l

. ” W e f

i n d no erro r in the trial c o u rt’ s

c o nc lu sio ns in this regard

.

i v . Ba la nci

n g the Ba rker- D o

ggett fa cto rs I n Ba rker , the United States Su p reme Co u rt exp lained
W e regard no ne o f the f

ou r f ac to rs . . . as either a nec essary o r su f fic ient
c o nd itio n to the f

in d i n g o f a d ep riv atio n o f the right o f s p eed y t r ial. Rather, they are related f ac to r s and mu st be c ons i d e r e d t o gether with
su c h o ther c irc u mstanc es as may be relev ant. I n su m, these f ac to rs hav e
no t a l i smanic qu alities; c o u rts mu st s till engage in a d if f ic u lt a nd sensitiv e balanc ing p ro cess.

B a r k e r , 4 0 7 U. S. at 533. This d irec t io n w a s c ited w ith ap p ro v a l by the Geo rgia
Su p reme Co u rt in Po rter
. P orter , 288 Ga. at 532- 533. I n p erf o rming t his d elic ate and
f ac t- intensiv e b a lanc ing t est, we f ind that ap p ellant’ s co nstitu tio nal right to a sp eed y trial has no t been d enied o r d iminished u nd e r the f ac ts o f this c ase. W hile there w as

a d elay in the p ro c eed ings w hic h triggered th e p resu m p tio n o f p rej u d ic e, the

24remaining f

ac ts o f the c ase d o no t su p po rt a f ind ing that ap p ellant’ s c onstitu tio nal
sp eed y trial rights hav e been v io lated

. T he tr i a l c o u r t assessed the fac ts, p ro p erly

c o nsid ered eac h o f the ap p lic able f ac to rs a nd d enied ap p ellant’ s mo tio ns whic h w ere based on c o nstitu tio nal sp eed y trial princ ip les. W e t heref o re af f irm the trial c o u rt’ s

exerc ise o f its d isc retio n in d enying the mo tio n f o r d i s c h arge and ac qu ittal o n

c o nstitu tio nal sp eed y trial gro u nd s. III. In effecti

v e a s s i s ta n ce o f co u n s el
A p p ellant c laims that he rec eiv ed inef fec t iv e assistanc e o f c o u nsel d u ring h i s trial. Sp ec if

ic ally, ap p e llant c omp lains on ap p eal that af ter trial c o u nsel f

iled an alibi

no tic e in ad v anc e o f trial, the a libi w itness w as no t c alled t o testif y at trial. D u ring the hearing on a p p ellant’ s mo tio n f o r new trial, trial c o u nsel testif ied as d id the p u rp o rted
alibi w itness.
To p rev ail o n an inef

f ec tiv e assistanc e o f c o u nsel c laim, a d e f e nd a nt m u st p ro v e bo t h that his trial c o u nsel’ s p erf o rmanc e w as d ef

ic ient and that he w as p rej u d ic ed by
this d ef ic ient p erf

o rmanc e . Bo n n er v . S t

a t e , 3 1 4 Ga. 47 2, 47 4 (1 ) (87 7 SE2d 588) (2022) (c iting Ba tes v . Sta te , 31 3 Ga. 57 , 6 2 (2) (86 7 SE2d 1 40) (2022));

25S tri

ckla n d v . W

as hi n gto n , 46 6 U. S

. 6 6 8 , 6 87 (I I I ) (1 04 SCt 2052, 80 LEd 2d 6 7 4) (1 9 84). “ To establish p rej u dic e , [ap p ellant] mu st sho w that ‘ bu t f o r s u c h def

ic ient
p erf o rmanc e there is a reaso nable p ro bability that t h e r e s u l t o f t he trial w ou ld hav e b e e n d i f f e rent. ’ ” Tu mli

n v . S ta te , 356 Ga. A p p. 46 1, 46 3 (1 ) (847 SE2d 6 37 ) (202 0 ) (c itatio n o mitted ). “ T his bu rd en, altho ugh no t imp o ssible to carry, is a heav y o ne. ”
Yo u n g v . S ta te , 29 2 G a. 443, 445 (3) (7 38 SE2d 57 5 ) (201 3) ( c itatio n o m itted )

. “ I f the
ap p ellant f

ails to meet his bu r d en o n o ne p r o ng o f this test, w e need no t ad dress the

o ther p ro ng. I n ad d itio n, a stro ng p r esu mp tio n exists that t rial c o u nsel perf o rmed

w ithin the w id e range o f reaso nable p ro f e ssio nal assistanc e. ” W

i lco x v. Sta te , 309 Ga.
A p p . 538, 539 (2) (7 1 1 SE2d 6 7 ) (201 1 ) (c itatio n and p unc t uatio n o mitted ).
A n ap p ellate c o u rt e v alu ates c o u nsel’ s p erf o rmanc e f

r om c ou nsel’ s p ersp ec tiv e a t the time o f trial. I n o ther w o rd s, “ hind sight has no p lac e in an assessment o f the p erf o rmanc e o f trial c o u nsel, and a law y er
sec o nd

- gu essing his o w n p erf o rmanc e with the benef

it o f hind sight has
no signif ic anc e f o r an inef f ec tiv e assistanc e o f

c o unsel c laim. ”

E as ley v . S ta te , 352 Ga. A p p . 1 , 9 (3) (833 SE2d 59 1 ) ( 201 9 ) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n

o mitted )

.

26A trial c ou rt’ s f ind ing o f ef

f ec tiv eness mu st be u pheld u nless c learly erro neo u s. C o v i n gto n v . S ta t

e , 251 Ga. A p p . 849 , 852 (555 S E 2d 204) (2001 ) (c itatio n and
p u nc tu atio n o mitted ). “ I n rev iew ing a lo w er c ou rt’ s d eterminatio n o f a c laim o f
i n e ffe ct i v e assistanc e o f c o unsel, w e giv e d ef erenc e to the trial co u rt’ s f ac tu al f ind ings,

w hic h are u p held o n ap peal u nless c learly erro neo u s; ho w e v er, w e rev iew the lo w er

c o u rt’ s legal c o nc lu sio ns d e no v o . ” T u mli n , 356 Ga. A p p . at 46 3 ( citatio n o mitted ).
W ith these p rinc ip les in mind , w e tu rn to ap p ellant’ s argu ments. Trial c o u nsel f

iled an alibi no tic e , ind ic at i n g t h a t o n the d ate and time the

o f f enses w ere co mmitted , a p p ellant was no t lo c ated w ithin the c o u nty w here the

o f f enses o c c urred and that his w hereabo u ts w o u ld be v erif ied by a w itness, V

. S.

. V

. S. w as ap p ellant’ s f

o rmer land lo rd and testif

ied that she w as with a p p ellant o n the d a t e

o f the cri m e u n til ap p ro ximately m id night at her ho me in A tlanta. She testif ied that
she and ap p ellant w ere w atc hing a sp ec if ic telev isio n sho w o n that ev e ning.
A f ter sp eak ing w ith V

. S

. p r i or to trial, c o unsel sent her a su bp o ena and
remained in co ntac t w ith the w itness to e nsu re that V

. S. k new w hen she w a s e xp ec ted

to testif y. 8 Trial c ou nsel also p aid fo r a rid e serv ic e to pic k V

. S. u p and transp o rt her

8 V

. S. d enied r ec eiv ing t he s u bp o ena bu t d id ac k no w led ge r e g u l a r telep ho ne c o ntac t w ith c o u nsel abo u t her ap p earanc e at trial.
27to co u rt o n the day she was to testif y. A s c o unsel d ro v e to c ou rt o n the last d ay o f trial,
she rec eiv ed a c all f

ro m V

. S. d u ring w hic h V

. S

. c laimed that she w as ill and w o u ld

no t be co ming to testif

y. V

. S. testif

ied that s he “ m ight” hav e to ld c o u n s e l ’ s ad ministrativ e assistant that she w as no t w illing to testif y. The w itness w as ho stile

w ith c ou nsel d u ring the c a ll and , giv en V

. S. ’ s to ne and the co ntent o f the

c o nv ersatio n, c o u nsel was c o nc erned whether the w itness w as being c and id a bo u t her

c o nd itio n. I n ad v anc e o f trial, bu t af ter c o u nsel f

iled the alibi no tic e, c o u nsel rec eiv ed

a s u p p lemental d isc o v ery resp o nse f ro m the State whic h inc lu d ed r e c o rd ings o f telep ho ne c alls t hat ap p ellant had w ith V

. S. w hile ap p ellant w as inc arc e r ated

. There

w as a s ignif

ic a nt d isp arity betw een w hat V

. S. h a d t o l d co u nsel and w hat w as

c o ntained o n tho se rec o r d ed c a lls. Co u nsel w as aw are that t h e S tate wo uld u se the

rec o rd ed t e l ep ho ne c alls t o imp eac h V

. S. if the w itness d id testif y. The co ntent o f
tho se c alls, c ombined w ith V

. S. ’ s s u d d en u nav ailability, mad e c o u nsel extremely

u neasy a nd c au s ed c o u nsel t o qu estio n V

. S. ’s c red ibility. I n the f inal analysis, c o u nsel
d id no t r equ est a c o ntinu a nc e b ec au se, as an o f f ic e r of the c o u rt, c o u nsel c o u ld no t mak e a go o d f

aith rep resentatio n w hether the c laim o f su d d e n illness was tru e o r no t.

28A s a m atter o f trial strategy, trial c o u nsel testif ied that ev e n if V

. S

. h a d
ap p eared as sc hed u led , c o u nsel may no t hav e called her a s a w itness. Co u nsel had f iled

an a libi no tic e b ut alibi was no t the so le d ef ense o r ev en the p rimary d ef en s e b e i n g
p resented

. W e c o nc lu d e, as d id the trial c o u rt, that trial c o u nsel d id no t pro v id e inef f ec tiv e assistanc e t o ap p ellant in this case. Co unsel’ s d ec isio n to f o rego testimo ny that w o u ld
hav e no t been help f

u l

- and c o u ld hav e ev en p ro v ed harmf u l

- to ap p ellant’ s d ef

ense

w as a matter o f reaso nable trial s trategy. See McKelv ey v . S t a te , 31 1 Ga. 34, 44 (5) (855
SE2d 59 8) (2021 ). B e c au se ap p ellant has no t o v erc o me t he stro ng p resu mp tio n that
trial c o u nsel’ s c o nd u c t f

e ll w ithin the bro ad range o f ac c ep table p ro fessio nal c o nd u c t, this enu meratio n o f erro r is also meritless. I t is w ell- established t hat a d ec isio n as to

w hic h d ef ense w itness to c all at trial o r w hether t o c all any su c h w itnesses is a “ matter

o f c o u ns e l ’ s tr i a l s trategy and w ill no t su p p o rt a c laim f o r inef f ec tiv e a ssistanc e o f

c o u nsel u nless it is so u nreaso nable that no c o mp etent atto rney w o u ld hav e mad e the
d ec isio n u nd er the c irc u mstanc es. ” Smi th v . S ta te , 3 7 1 Ga. A p p . 7 40, 7 45 (3) (9 03 SE2d 1 35) (2024) (c i ta t io n omitted ). That bu rd en has no t been c arried by ap p ellant

u nd er these f

ac ts.

29B e c au se ap p ellant has f ailed to establish def

ic ient c ond u c t, we need no t reac h
the issu e o f p r ej u d ic e. W

ilco x v . S ta te , 309 Ga. A p p . 538, 539 ( 2) (7 1 1 SE2d 6 7 ) (201 1) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).
Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed. D i lla rd, P. J. , a nd Bro wn

, J. , co n cu r .

30