FI RST DI VI SI ON

BA RNES, P. J.

, GOBEI L and PI PKI N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly 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

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

A u gust 3, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A1 49 6 . M cNEELY v . THE STATE.

B A R N E S , Pres i d i n g J ud g e.

In t h i s cas e ari s i n g o u t o f a s h o o t i n g t h at o ccu rred d u ri n g a d ru g d eal

, An t wan

Do m i n i q u e M cNeel y was co n v ict ed o f ag g rav at ed as s au l t an d p o s s es si o n o f a fi rearm

d u ri n g t h e co m

m i s s i o n o f a cri m e. On ap p eal fro m t he d en ial o f h i s m o t i o n fo r n ew

t ri al

, M cNeel y co n ten d s t h at he recei v ed in effect i v e as s i s tan ce fro m h i s t ri al co u n s el

.

Sp eci fi cal l y

, M cNeel y arg u es t h at h i s t ri al co u n sel was d efi ci en t i n fai li n g t o rev i ew

cert ai n v id eo s u rv ei l lan ce fo o t ag e b efo re t ri al

, an d t h at

, i f h is co u n s el h ad rev i ewed

t h e fo o t ag e an d ad v i s ed h i m ab o u t i t

, h e wo u l d h av e accep t ed a p l e a o ffer m ad e by

t h e St at e i n s t ead o f p ro ceed i n g t o t ri al

. Fo r t h e reas o n s d i s cu s sed m ore fu l l y b el o w,

we co n cl u d e th at t h e t ri al co u rt di d n o t err i n d en y i n g M cNeel y ’ s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

o n t h e g ro u n d t h at h i s co u n s el was i n effect i v e. Acco rd i n gl y , we affi rm

.“ On ap p eal fro m a cri m i n al co n v i ct i o n

, we v i ew t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l ig h t m o s t

fav o rab l e to t h e v erd i ct

, w i t h t h e d efen d an t n o l o n ger en jo y i n g a p res u m

p t i o n o f

i n n o cen ce.” (Ci t at i on o m i tt ed .) Rees e v. S t a t e

, 27 0 Ga. Ap p

. 5 2 2

, 5 2 3 (6 0 7 SE2 d 1 6 5 )

(2 0 0 4). So v i ewed

, t h e ev i d en ce s h owed t hat o n th e ni g h t o f M ay 1

, 2 01 4

, t he v i ct i m

d ro v e t o a h o t el i n Ri ch m o n d Co u n t y

, Geo rg i a, to s el l an o u n ce o f m et h am p het am i ne.

Th e v i ct i m arran g ed t he d ru g deal t h ro u gh a fri en d , wh o m et h i m i n t h e h o t el ro o m

al o n g wi t h t h e bu y er. 1 Th e b u y er wen t b y t h e n i ck n am e Sm i l e y

. A f ter th e v i ct i m

wei g h ed t h e m et h am

p h e t a m i n e, Sm i l ey pu l l ed o ut a han d g u n an d p o i n t ed i t at t h e

v i ct i m

. W h en t h e v i ct i m refu s ed t o h an d o v er t h e d ru g s

, Sm i l ey fi red a s h ot t h ro u g h

t h e fl oo r an d an o t her i n t o t h e wal l b efo re l eav i n g t h e h ot el ro o m

.

Th e v i ct i m l eft t he ho t el ro o m a few m i nu t es l at er an d g o t i n to h is t ru ck i n t h e

h o t el p ark i ng l o t

. A n SUV th en p u l l ed u p b es i d e t h e v i ct i m ’ s t ru ck an d s o m eo n e g ot

o u t

, u ns u cces s fu l ly t ri ed t o o pen t h e t ru ck ’ s do o rs

, an d fi red t wo s h ot s i n t o th e t ru ck

b efo re ju m

p i n g back i n t o t h e SUV. On e o f t h e b ul l et s s t ru ck t h e v ict i m i n t h e l eg

. Th e

v i ct i m ram m ed t h e SUV wi t h h i s t ru ck

, an d t hen bo t h v eh i cl es d ro v e away

. Th e

v i ct i m s u b s eq u en tl y

was t ran sp o rt ed b y

am bu l an ce t o t h e h o s pi t al fo r t reat m en t

.

1 A fo u rt h p ers o n

, wh o wen t b y t h e n i ck n am e T. J

. , al s o was i n t he h o t el ro o m

.

2W h en t h e v ict i m i n i t i al l y s p o k e wi t h a p o li ce i n ves t i g at o r, h e t ri ed t o co v er u p

t h e f a c t t h at t he s h o o t i n g o ccu rred d uri n g a d ru g t ran s act i o n

. Ho wev er, t h e v i ct i m

l at er ad m i t t ed to t h e i n v es t i gat o r t h at t h e s h o o ti n g o ccu rred i n t h e co n t ex t o f a d ru g

d eal at t h e h ot el

, an d h e i d en t i fi ed M cNeel y i n a p h o t o g rap hi c l i n eu p as Sm i l ey

, t h e

b u y er wh o fi red t h e s h o t s i n t h e h o t el ro o m

. Th e v i ct i m al s o id en t ifi ed M cNeel y as

Sm il ey l at er at t ri al . Th e v i ct i m d i d n o t see th e face o f th e p ers o n wh o fi red i n t o h i s

t ru ck i n t h e p ark i ng l o t.

Th e v i ct i m ’ s fri en d wh o h ad b een p res en t d u ri n g t he d ru g deal al s o s p o k e wi th

an i n ves ti g at o r an d t o l d h i m ab o ut wh at t ran s p i red at t h e h o t e l

. He i d en t i fi ed

M cNeel y a s S m i l ey i n a p h o to g rap h i c l i n eu p an d l at er at t ri al

. Th e v i ct i m ’ s fri en d,

wh o h ad b een s t an d in g o n t h e h o t el b al co n y wh en t he s h o o t i n g o ccu rred i n t h e

p ark i n g l o t

, t o l d t h e i nv es t i g at o r t h at h e s aw M cNeel y fi re th e s h o t s i n t o t h e v i ct i m ’ s

t ru ck

.

Th e m o rn i n g aft er t h e s ho o t i n g, M cNeel y ’ s gi rl fri en d d i s co v ered t h at t h e fro nt

o f h er SUV w as d am ag ed

. McNeel y t o l d her t h at h e h ad b een d ri vi n g t h e SUV an d

d am ag ed i t wh en h e s w erv ed t o m i s s a ch i ld

. Su s p ici o u s of M cNeel y ’ s st o ry

, t h e

g i rl fri en d s p o k e wi t h a l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer an d t ol d h i m t hat M cNeel y h ad b een

i n p o s s es s i o n o f h er SUV wh en t h e d am ag e occu rred . Sh e al s o t o l d t he i n v es t i g at o r

3t h at M cNeel y w en t b y t h e n ick n am e Sm i l ey

, an d s h e han d ed o v er h er d am ag ed SUV

t o an in v es t i g at o r. Th e i n v es t i g at o r h ad t h e vi ct i m ’ s fri en d l o o k at t h e d am ag ed SUV,

an d t h e fri en d co n fi rm ed t h at i t was t h e s am e SUV i n v o lv ed i n t h e s ho o t i n g

.

Th e i n v es t i g at o r co n t act ed t h e h o t e l m a n a g er an d l earn ed t h at t he h o t el was

eq u ip p ed wi t h a v i d e o s u rv ei l l an ce s y st em

. He o b t ai ned a v i d eo fro m t h e h o t el

m an ag er t h at i ncl u d ed fo o t ag e o f t h e o ut s i d e of t h e h ot el ro o m an d t h e p ark i n g l ot

area o n t h e n i g h t i n q u es t io n

. Th e v i d eo was d i v i d ed in t o t wo fi l es

. Th e i m ag es

ca p t u red i n t he two v id eo fi l es were s m al l an d b l u rry b u t were co ns i s ten t wi t h t h e

v i ct i m an d h i s fri en d ’ s d es cri p t i o n s o f wh at h ad occu rred

. Th e fi rs t vi d eo fi l e s h o wed

p e o p l e g o i n g in an d o u t of t h e h ot el ro o m i n q u es t i o n

, an d th e s eco n d vi d eo f i l e

s h o wed p eo p l e l eav in g th e ro o m fo l l o wed b y t he s h o o t i ng i n ci d en t i n t h e p ark i n g l ot

i n v o l v i n g t h e t r u ck an d SUV. Al t h o u g h t h e sh o ot er’ s face co u l d n ot b e s een i n t h e

s eco n d v i d eo fi l e, t h e vi d eo s ho wed t h e sh o ot er weari n g a wh i t e s hi rt

, wh i ch was

co n si s t en t w i t h t h e des cri p t i o n o f M cNeel y ’ s cl o t h i n g g i v en b y t h e v i ct i m ’ s fri en d.

Ad d i t i o n al l y

, wh en M cNeel y ’ s g i rl fri en d was s ho wn t h e s eco nd v i d eo fi l e, s h e

i d en t i fi ed h er SUV as t he v eh i cl e i n t h e v i d eo p u l l i n g u p t o t h e t ru ck d u ri n g t h e

s h o o ti n g

.

4M cNeel y was arres t ed

, an d o ffi cers d i sco v ered a H i

- P o i n t h an d g un o n t h e

k i t ch en tab l e i n hi s ap art m en t

. A G eo rg i a Bu reau o f In v es ti g at i o n (“ GBI”) ex p ert in

fi rearm s an al y si s ex am i n e d t h e h an d g u n an d s ev eral 9 m i l l i m et er cart ri d g e cas es

reco v ered fro m t he cri m e s cen e an d d et erm i n ed t hat t h e cart ri d g e cas es h ad b een fi red

fro m t h at g u n

.

Befo re t ri al

, t h e p r o s e c u t o r o ffered a p lea d eal t o M cNeel y o f fi ve y ears in

co n fi n em en t fo l l o w e d b y fi v e y ears o n pro b at i o n

. M cNeel y reject ed t h e o ffer aft er

d i s cu s s i n g i t wi t h h i s t ri al co u n s el

. M cNe e l y m a d e a co u n t ero ffer o f 1 0 y ears

, wi th

t h e fi rs t 2 y ears in co nfi n em en t fo l lo wed b y 8 y ears o n pro b at i o n

, wh i ch t h e St at e d id

n o t accep t

. In l et t ers wri t t en b y M cNeel y t o t h e p r o s ecu t o r, h e st at ed t h at t h e p l ea

o ffered b y th e St at e i n v o lv ed a “ h ars h s en t en ce,” t h at h e w as i nn o cen t o f t h e ch arg es

ag ai n s t h i m

, t hat h e wa s t h e v ict i m an d act ed i n sel f-d efen s e, th at t here were

“ l eg i t i m at e reas o n s fo r [h i m ] t o t ak e t h i s cas e t o tri al ,” an d t h at he was “ read y t o g et

b ack ho m e wi t h [h i s] fam il y .”

At t h e en s u in g ju ry t ri al

, i n ad d i t i o n t o t he tes t im o n y o f t h e v ict i m

, th e v i ct i m ’ s

fri en d, McNeel y ’ s gi rl fri en d

, t he GBI fi rearm s ex p ert , an d s ev eral l aw en fo rcem en t

o ffi cers

, t h e St at e in t ro d u ced i n t o ev i d en ce an d p l ay ed fo r t h e ju ry t h e t wo v i d eo

s u rv ei l l an ce fi les fro m t h e h o t el

. W h en t h e St at e p lay ed t h e s eco nd v i d eo fi l e t h at

5s h o wed t h e s h oo t i n g in ci d en t i n t h e p ark i n g l o t

, M cNeel y ’ s tri al co u n s el pas s ed h i m

a n o t e wh i ch read :

W e d i d n ot s ee t he s eco n d fi l e o f th e s ecu ri t y v i d eo

– I t h o u g h t we h ad

s een al l t h ere was t o s ee. If y o u are co nv i ct ed t h en y o u can rai s e th at i n

a m o t io n fo r n ew t ri al o r ap p eal

– Yo u wo ul d g et a d ifferen t l awy er. I

wo u ld b e cal l ed as a wi t n es s

.

Th e ju ry t ri al co n t i n ued

, an d McNeel y ul t i m at el y el ect ed no t t o tes t i fy an d d i d n o t cal l

an y d efen s e w i t n es s es

. Fo l l o wi n g i t s d el i b erat i o n s

, t h e ju ry fo u n d M cNeel y g u i l t y o f

ag g rav at ed as s au l t b as ed o n th e s h o o t i n g o f t h e v i ct i m an d o f p o ss es s i o n of a fi rearm

d u ri n g t h e co m

m i s s i o n o f a cri m e. 2 Th e t ri al co u rt en t ered ju d g m en t on t h e co n v i ct i o n

an d s en t en ced M cNeel y t o 2 5 y ears

, wi th t h e fi rs t 2 0 y ears i n co n fi n em en t fo l l o wed

b y 5 y ears o n p ro b at i o n

.

M cNeel y fi led a m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, co n t en di n g, am o n g o th er t hi n g s

, t h at h i s

t ri al co u n s el was in effect i ve becau s e h e d i d n o t ad eq uat el y p rep are fo r t ri al by

rev i ewi n g t h e seco n d of t he t wo s u rv ei l l an ce v id eo fi l es fro m t h e ho t el

. A c c o rd i n g

2 M cNeel y al s o was i nd i ct ed o n ch arg es o f cri m i n al at t em p t t o co m m i t arm ed

ro b b ery an d p o ss es s i on o f a fi rearm b y a c o n v i c t e d fel o n

. He was acq u i t t ed o f

at t em p t ed arm ed ro b b ery , an d t h e fi rearm ch arg e was n ol l e p ro s s ed

.

6t o M cNeel y

, i f h i s t ri al co u n s el h ad rev iewed t h e s eco n d v i d eo fi l e b efo re t ri al an d

d i s cu s s ed i t wi t h h i m , h e wo u l d h av e accep t ed t h e p lea d eal o ffered b y t h e St at e.

At t h e h e a ri n g o n t h e m o t i o n fo r n ew tri al

, M cNeel y ’ s t ri al co u n s el t es t i fi ed

t h at t h e St at e p ro v i d ed h i m acces s t o t h e t wo v i d eo fi l es fro m t he h o t el ’ s s urv ei l l an ce

s y s t em b efo re t ri al

, b u t he had m i s t ak en l y o n ly re v i e w e d t h e f irs t o f th e t wo v i d eo

fi les an d t h u s d id n o t d i s c u s s wi t h M cNeel y t he s eco n d fi l e sh o wi n g t h e sh o o t i n g

i n ci d en t i n t h e h ot el p ark i n g lo t. Acco rd i n g t o t ri al co u n sel

, had h e b een aware o f t h e

s eco n d v id eo fi l e, h e wo u l d h av e ad vi s ed hi s cl ien t t o s t ro ng l y co ns i d er accep t i n g a

p l ea d eal

. Ho wev er, t ri al co u n s el al s o t es t i fi ed th at M cNeel y p rev i o u s l y h ad b e e n

fo u n d n o t g u i l t y b y t h e s am e t ri al ju d ge i n a b en ch t ri al i n a d i fferen t cri m i n al cas e,

t h at he an d M cNeel y l ik ed hav i n g t h e s a m e ju d g e i n th e p res en t cas e, an d t h at

M cNeel y “ was p ret t y s tro ng l y wan t i n g t o h av e a t ri al .” Acco rd i n g t o t ri al co un s el

, h e

d i d n o t recal l s eei ng an y s ig ns fro m M cNeel y th at a g u i lt y p l ea w o u ld b e a p o s s i b i l i t y

i n t hi s cas e. A d d i t io n al l y

, t h e St at e i n t ro d u ced in t o ev i d en ce an em ai l co n tai n i n g t h e

St at e’ s pl ea o ffer of fi v e y ears to s erv e, fi v e y ears o n p ro b at i o n

, an em ai l co n t ai n i n g

M cNeel y ’ s co u n tero ff

er o f t wo y ears t o s erv e, ei g h t y ears o n pro b at i o n

, an d

M cNeel y ’ s l et t ers t o t h e p ro s ecu t o r i n wh i ch h e pro cl ai m ed hi s i nn o c e n c e a n d

cri t i ci zed t h e p l ea d eal o ffered b y t h e St at e. M cNeel y d i d no t t es t i fy at t h e n ew t ri al

7h eari n g

. Fo l l o wi n g t h e h eari n g

, t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered i t s o rd er reject i n g M cNeel y ’ s

i n effect i v e a s s i s t a n c e cl ai m an d d en y i ng h i s m ot i o n fo r new t ri al

. Th i s ap p eal

fo l l o w ed i n wh i ch M cNeel y co n t en d s t hat h i s t ri al co u ns el ren d ered i n effect i v e

as s i s tan ce an d t hat t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n co n cl ud i n g o t h erwi s e. 3

To s u c c e e d o n a cl ai m o f i n effect i v e as s i s tan ce o f co u n s el u n d er t h e tes t

en u nci at ed i n S t r i ckl a nd

v. W a s h i n g t o n , 4 6 6 U. S. 6 6 8

, 6 8 7 (III) (1 04 SCt 2 0 5 2 , 8 0

LE2 d 67 4 ) (1 9 8 4 ), a d efen d an t m u st sh o w b o t h t h at h i s la w ye r ’s p erfo rm an ce was

d efi ci en t an d t h at t hi s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an c e r e s ul t ed i n p reju d i ce t o t h e d efen d an t

.

Th o ma s v. St at e

, 30 3 Ga. 7 00

, 7 0 2 (2 ) (8 1 4 SE2 d 69 2 ) (2 0 1 8 ). “ If an ap p el l an t fai l s

t o m eet h i s o r h er bu rd en o f pro vi n g ei t h er p ro n g o f th e S t r i ckl a n d t es t, th e rev i ewi n g

co u rt d o es n o t h av e t o ex am i n e t h e o t h er p ro n g .” La wr en ce v. S t at e

, 2 86 Ga. 5 3 3,

5 3 3 -5 3 4 (2 ) (6 9 0 SE2 d 8 0 1 ) (2 0 1 0 ). “ In ad dres s i n g cl ai m s o f i neffect i v e as s i s t an ce

o f co u n s el

, we rev i ew th e t ri al co u rt ’s l eg al co n cl u s i o ns d e n ov o an d i t s fact u al

fi nd i ng s un d er t h e cl earl y erro neo u s s t an d ard .” Ra mi r ez v. S t a t e

, 3 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. 6 1 1,

6 1 8 (3 ) (8 1 4 SE2 d 7 51 ) (2 0 1 8 ).

3 Al t h o u gh n o t en um erat ed as erro r, we co n cl u de t h at t he ev i d en ce reco u n t ed

ab o v e w a s s u f

fi ci en t t o en ab l e a rat i o n al tri er o f fact t o fi n d b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e

d o u b t t h at McNeel y was g u i l ty o f t h e cri m es fo r wh i ch h e was co n v i ct ed

. Ja cks o n v.

Vi r g i n i a , 4 4 3 U. S. 3 0 7 (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

8Pret e r m i t t i ng w h et h er M cNeel y ’ s t ri al co u n s el was d efi ci en t i n fai l i n g to

rev i ew t h e s eco n d o f t h e t wo v i d eo fi l es b efo re t ri al an d d i s cu s s i t wi t h h i m

, we

c o n c l u de t h at t h e t ri al co u rt was au t h o ri zed t o d et erm i n e t h at M cNeel y fai l ed t o

es t ab l i s h t h at h e was p reju d i ced b y co u n s el ’ s al l eg ed d efi ci en cy

. 4 M cNeel y d o es n ot

arg u e o n ap p eal t hat t h ere i s a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i li t y t h at t he res u l t o f h i s t ri al wo u ld

h av e b een d i fferen t

, bu t fo r h i s co u n s el ’ s al leg ed d efi ci en cy i n fai l i n g t o rev i ew t h e

s eco n d v i d eo fi l e. Rat h er, h e co n t en d s t h at b ut fo r hi s co u n s el ’ s d efi ci en cy i n fai l i n g

t o rev i ew t he v i deo an d ad v is e h i m ab o u t i t i n t h ei r d i s cu s s i o n s ab o ut t h e St at e’ s p l ea

o ffer, h e wo u l d h av e accep t ed t h e p l ea o ffer i n s t ead o f p ro ceed i n g wi th t ri al

.

4 M cNeel y al so as s ert s t h at h i s t ri al co u n s el was d efi ci en t b ecau s e h e t o l d t h e

ju ry du ri ng h i s o p en in g st at em en t t h at M cNeel y act ed i n s el f-d efen s e b u t t h en l at er

fai l ed to p res en t an y ev i d en ce to s u p p o rt su ch a d efen s e. As an i ni t ial m at t er, n ei t h er

o p en in g s t at em en t s n o r c l o si n g arg u m en t s were t ran s cri b ed

, an d th u s i t i s u n cl ear

wh at co u n s el s p eci fi cal l y as sert ed d u ri n g h i s o p en i n g s t a t e m en t or w h at h e l at er

arg u ed d u ri n g cl o s in g arg um en t

. In an y ev en t

, ev en i f we were t o as s u m e t h at t ri al

co u ns el was d efi ci en t in rai s i ng s el f-d efen s e i n h i s o p en i n g s t at em en t

, M cNeel y h as

fai l ed to s h o w a reas o n ab l e pro bab i li t y t h at t h e o u t co m e o f h i s t ri al w o u ld h av e b een

d i fferen t i n t h e ab s en ce o f t h e al l eg ed d efi ci en cy

. See W i l li a ms v. S ta t e

, 2 92 Ga. 8 4 4,

8 4 9 (3 ) (b ) (7 4 2 SE2 d 4 4 5 ) (2 0 13 ) (i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce cl ai m fai l ed

, wh ere

d efen d an t h ad “ n o t s h o wn a reas o n ab l e pro b ab i l i t y t h at t h e o u t co m e of t h e t ri al wo u ld

h av e b een d i fferen t if t he l awy er h a d n o t m ad e t he m i ss t at em en t i n h er o p en i n g

sta te m e nt” )

. “ [T] h e preju d ici al effect

, i f an y

, res u l ti n g fro m t he inc onsiste nc y be tw e e n

t h e ev i d en ce an d t h e m i s s t at em en t was m i t i g at ed b y t h e t ri al co u rt ch arg i n g t h e ju ry

t h at wh at t h e lawy ers s ay i n o p en in g s t at em en t i s n o t ev i d en ce b ut i s [‘ m ere l y [a]

p rev i ew[ ] o f wh at t h e l awy ers reas o n ab l y ex p ect ed t h e ev i d en ce t o s h o w’ ] .”

(Pu n ct u at i on o m i t t ed .) Id

.

9A d efen d an t cl ai m i n g i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce bas ed o n reject i n g a

p l ea o ffer b ecau se o f co u n s el ’ s d efi ci en t ad v ice m u s t es t ab l i s h p reju di ce

b y s h o wi n g : (1 ) t h at bu t fo r t h e i n effect i v e ad v i ce of co u n s el

, th ere is a

reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i li t y t h at t h e p lea o ffer wo u l d h av e b een p res en t ed t o

t h e co u rt

, m ean in g t h at th e d efen d an t wo u l d h av e accep t ed t h e p l ea an d

t h e p ro s ecu t i o n wo u l d no t h av e wi t h d rawn i t i n l i g h t o f i n t erv en i n g

ci rcu m s t an ces ; (2 ) t h at t h e t ri al co u rt wo u l d h av e accep t ed t he term s o f

t h e ne g o t i at ed p l ea; an d (3 ) t h at t h e co n v i ct i on o r s en t en ce, o r b o th

,

u n d er t h e o ffer’ s t erm s wo u l d h av e b een l es s s ev ere t han u nd er th e

ju d g m en t an d s en t en ce t h at i n fact were i m p o s ed

.

(Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed

. ) Y a r n v. S t a t e

, 30 5 G a. 4 21

, 4 2 6 -4 27 (4 ) (8 2 6

SE2 d 1 ) (2 0 1 9 ). See La

f l er v. Co o p er

, 56 6 U.S. 1 56

, 1 6 4 (II) (B) (1 32 S Ct 1 3 7 6

, 1 8 2

LE2 d 3 9 8 ) (2 0 1 2 ); Gr a mi a k v. Bea s l ey

, 30 4 Ga. 5 1 2

, 5 1 5 (I) (B) (8 2 0 SE2 d 5 0 )

(2 0 1 8). Th u s

, i n th e co n t ex t o f an i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce cl ai m p red i cat ed o n a reject ed

p l ea o ffer, t h e d efen d an t can es t ab l i s h p reju d i ce o n l y i f, am o n g o t h er t h i n g s

, h e s h o ws

“ t h at a reas o n ab le l i k el i h o o d ex i s t s t h at h e wo u l d h av e accep t ed t h e p l ea o ffer b u t fo r

t ri al co u n s el ’ s d efi ci en t rep res en t at io n .” Gr ami a k

, 3 0 4 Ga. at 5 1 7 (I) (C). See Ll o yd

v. S t a t e

, 25 8 Ga. 6 4 5

, 6 4 8 (2 ) (b ) (3 7 3 SE2 d 1 ) (1 9 8 8 ). A n d

, w e a p p l y th e cl earl y

erro neo u s s t an d ard wh en rev i ewi n g a t ri al co u rt ’ s deci s i on reg ard i n g wh et h er t o d raw

an i n feren ce t h at t h e d efen d an t wo u l d h av e accep ted t he St at e’ s p lea o ffer b as ed o n

d i s p u t ed o r u n cl ear ev i den ce. See Cl evel a n d v. S t a t e

, 2 8 5 Ga. 14 2

, 1 4 6 -1 4 7 (6 7 4

10SE2 d 2 8 9 ) (2 0 0 9). A p pl y i n g t hat s t a n d a r d

, w e d is cern n o erro r b y th e tri al co u rt in

t h i s cas e.

M cNeel y di d n o t t es t i fy or o ffer an y o t h er d i rect ev i d en ce at t h e m o t i o n fo r n ew

t ri al h eari n g t h at h e wo u l d h av e ev er accep t ed t h e St at e’ s o ffer o f fi v e y ears in

co n fi n em en t fo l lo wed b y fi v e y ears o n p ro b at io n

, h ad h e b een ad v is ed b y co u n s el

ab o ut t h e s eco n d v i deo fi l e. An d

, as p rev i o u s l y d i scu s s ed

, t h ere was t es t i m o n y fro m

M cNeel y ’ s t ri al co u n s el at t h e n ew t ri al h eari n g refl ect i n g t h at M cNeel y was p l eas ed

t h at t h e cas e h ad b een as s ig ned t o t h e s am e t ri al ju dg e wh o h ad p rev io u s ly acq u i t t ed

h i m i n a d i fferen t cas e, t hat h e s t ro n g l y wan ted t o p ro ceed t o t ri al

, an d t h at t h ere were

n o si g n s t h at M cNeel y u l ti m at el y wo u l d b e wi ll i n g t o p l ead g u i l t y

. Fu rt h erm o re, in

M cNeel y ’ s l et t ers t o t h e p ro secu t o r ad m i t t ed i n t o ev i d en ce at t h e n ew t ri al h eari n g,

M cNeel y cri t i ci zed th e St at e’ s p l e a o ffer, pro cl ai m ed h i s b el i ef i n h i s i n n o cen ce,

i n d i cat ed t hat he was o n l y am en ab l e t o a p l ea deal i n v ol v in g m u ch m o re p ro b at i o n

t i m e a n d l e s s p ri s on ti m e, an d m ad e cl ear t h at h e bel i ev ed t h ere were g o o d reas on s

t o p ro ceed wi t h a t ri al

.

Gi v en t h i s reco rd

, th e t ri a l c o u rt was en t i tl ed to fi n d t h at M cNeel y fai l ed to

s h o w th at a reas on ab l e l i k el i h o o d ex i s t s t h at h e wo u l d h av e accep t ed t h e St at e’ s p l ea

o ffer, b u t fo r h i s t ri al co u n s el ’ s fai l u re t o rev iew t h e s eco nd v i d eo fi l e an d d i s cu s s i t

11wi t h h i m

. See Ja co b s v. S t a t e

, 3 0 6 Ga. 5 7 1

, 5 74 (2 ) (a) (8 3 2 SE2 d 3 6 3 ) (2 0 1 9 )

(d efen d an t fai l ed t o s h o w reas on ab le pro b ab i li t y t h at sh e wo u l d h av e accep t ed p l ea

o ffer, wh ere h er t ri al lawy ers t es t i fi ed t h at s h e “ was ex t rem el y ad am an t t h at s h e was

n o t g u i l t y an d had act ed i n s el f-d efen s e”); Po rt v. St a te

, 2 9 5 Ga. A p p

. 1 0 9

, 1 1 2 -1 1 3

(2 ) (b ) (6 7 1 SE2 d 2 0 0 ) (2 0 08 ) (d efen d an t fai led t o s h ow reas o n ab l e pro b ab i l i t y t h at

h e wo u l d h av e accep ted p l ea o ffer i f h e had b een “ fu ll y ad v i s ed o f t h e ev i den ce t o b e

p res en t ed ag ai n st h i m at t ri al ,” wh ere d efen d an t “ i n d icat ed at t he m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

h eari n g t h a t h e reject ed t h e

. . . p l ea

. . . becau s e o f th e u n d es i rab l e t erm o f

co n fi n em en t ”). Acco rd i n gl y

, t h e tri al co urt co m m i tt e d n o e rro r i n reject i n g

M cNeel y ’ s i n effect i v e as si s t an ce cl ai m an d d en y in g h i s m ot i o n fo r n ew t ri al

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Go b ei l

a n d Pi p ki n

, JJ., co n cu r

.

12