FI RST DI VI SI ON

BA RNES, P. J.

, M CM I LLI A N and R EESE, 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.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ay 3, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A0 50 2 . RAM IREZ v . THE STATE.

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

A ju ry fo u n d Hu b er Harm Ram i rez g u i lt y o f m ul ti p l e c o u n t s o f ch i ld

m o les t at i o n an d o t h er rel at ed o ffen s es

, an d t h e t ri al co u rt den i ed h i s am en ded m o t i o n

fo r n ew t ri al

. On ap p eal

, Ram i rez co n t en d s t h at t h e ev id en ce w as i n s uffi ci en t to

s u p p ort h i s c o n v i ct i o n s

, th at h e was n o t p res en t d u ri n g a cri ti cal st ag e o f t h e t ri al

p ro ceed in g s

, an d t h at h is t ri al co u n s el ren d ered i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce. Fo r t he reas on s

d i s cu s s ed b el o w, we affi rm

.

“ Fo l l o wi n g a cri m i n al co n v i c t i o n

, t h e d efen d an t i s n o l on g er p res u m ed

i n n o cen t, an d we v i ew t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav orab l e t o s u s t ai n t h e v erd i ct .”

A n t h o n y v. S t a t e

, 3 1 7 Ga. A p p. 8 07

, 8 0 7 (7 3 2 SE2 d 84 5 ) (2 0 1 2 ). So v i ewed

, t h e

ev i d en ce sh o wed t h at Ram i rez l i v ed wi t h h i s wi fe, h is two dau g h t ers

, h i s

s t ep d au g h t e r

, a n d hi s b ro t h er i n Go rd o n Co u n t y

, Geo rg i a. In Sep t em b er 2 0 1 2

, t h e

s t ep d au g h t er s tart ed s eco n d g rad e. Du ri n g t h at s ch o o l y ear, Ram irez s ex u al l y ab u s edh i s s t ep d au g h t er i n t h e g arag e, t h e b at h ro o m

, h i s b ed ro o m

, an d t he ki t ch en

. Ram i rez

t o l d h er n o t t o t el l an y o n e.

In t h e g arag e, t h e s t ep dau g h t er was ret ri ev in g h er bi k e wh en Ram i rez t o l d h er

t o co m e o v er to wh ere h e w as wo rk i n g o u t

. Ram i rez t h e n p u l l ed d o wn h i s

s t ep d au g h t e r ’s p a n t s an d to u ch ed h er g en i t al s

. He al s o to u ch ed h er ch es t area

u n d ern eat h h er s h i rt

. Th e s t ep d au g h t er as k ed Ram i rez t o s t o p

, b ut he t ol d h e r t o b e

q u i et

.

In t h e b at h ro o m

, Ram i rez t o o k o ff h i s s tep d au gh t er’ s p an t s an d p u l l ed u p h er

s h i rt

, an d t h en h e t o u ch ed h er g en i t al s an d her ch es t area. Ram irez a l s o k i s s ed h i s

s t ep d au g h t er o n t h e m o u t h i n t h e b at h ro o m an d p l aced h i s m o u t h o n h er ch es t area.

On an o t her o ccas i o n, Ram i rez rem ov ed h i s s t ep d au g h t er’ s t o wel wh i l e s h e w as i n t h e

b at h ro o m a n d p u t h i s p en i s o n h er g en i t al s

. Acco rd in g t o t he s t ep d au g h t er, “ wh i t e

s t uff” cam e o u t o f Ram i rez’ s p en i s an d o n t o her g en i t al s an d b el l y

, an d h e wi p ed i t

o ff wi t h t o il et p ap er.

In t h e m ot h er an d Ram i rez’ s b ed ro o m

, Ram i rez as k ed th e s t ep d au g h t er t o g et

i n t h e b ed wi t h hi m

, an d aft er s h e co m p l i ed

, he grab b ed h er h an d

, pl aced i t d o wn h i s

s h o rt s

, an d m ad e h er “ s q u is h ” h i s p en i s wi t h h er h an d

. Ram i rez al s o p laced h i s fi n g er

2i n s i d e t he s t ep d au g h t er’ s v ag i n a o n an o th er occas i o n aft er cal l i n g h er i n t o t h e

b ed ro o m . Sh e as k ed h i m

t o s to p b ecau s e i t h urt , b u t h e refu s ed t o d o s o

.

In t h e k i t ch en

, Ram i rez was co o k i ng d i n n e r, an d h i s t w o d au gh t ers an d h i s

s t ep d au g h t er were t h ere wi t h h i m

. W h en o ne o f h is d au g h t ers wen t t o t h e res t ro o m

,

Ram i rez as k ed h i s o t h er d au gh t er to g o t o t h e cl o set an d g et an i t em t hat h e n eed ed

f o r co o k i n g

. Aft er h i s t w o d au g h t ers left t h e ro o m

, Ram i rez t ou ch ed h i s

s t ep d au g h t er’ s b r e as t an d g en i t al s o v er h er cl ot h i n g

. Ram i rez t o l d h is s t ep d au g h t er

t h at h e wan t ed t o h av e s ex wi t h h er i n t he b at h ro o m

.

In Ap ri l 2 0 1 3

, th e s t ep dau g h t e r d i s cl os ed t o h er s eco n d g rad e teach er t h at

Ram i rez w o u l d w ai t fo r her wh en s h e g o t o u t of t h e b at ht u b an d t h at i t m ad e h er feel

u n co m fo rt ab l e. Th e t each er s t o p p ed t h e s t ep d au g h t er fro m m ak in g an y fu rt h er

d i s cl os u res an d to ok h er t o t he s ch o o l co u n sel o r. In t h e co u n s el o r ’s o f fi ce, t h e

s t ep d au g h t er s ai d t h at Ram i rez h ad b een h av i n g s ex wi t h her. Wh e n as k ed b y t h e

co u ns el o r t o el ab o rat e o n wh at s h e m ean t b y “ sex ,” t h e s t ep dau g ht er s ai d t hat s h e was

afrai d t o t el l b ecau s e s h e wo u l d g et i n t ro u b l e. Aft er fu rt h er as s uran ces fro m t h e

co u ns el o r, t h e s tep d au gh t er d es cri b ed i n ci d en t s t h at o ccu rred i n d i fferen t r o o m s o f

h er h o u s e wh ere Ram i rez t ou ch ed h er ch es t area an d v ag i n a an d ejacu la t e d o n h er

3ch es t

. T h e s tep d au g h t er t o l d t h e co u ns el o r t h at h er m o th er d id n ot k n o w a b o u t t h e

ab u se.

A ch i l d p ro t ect i v e s erv i ces i n v es t i g at o r wi th t he Go rd o n Co u n t y Dep art m en t

o f Fam i l y an d Ch il d ren Serv i ces cam e t o t h e el em en t ary s ch o o l t h at s am e d ay an d

s p o k e wi th t h e s tep d au g h t er, wh o ag ai n d es cri b ed s ev eral o f t he i n ci d en t s o f s ex u al

ab u se t h at h ad o ccu rred at h e r h o u s e. Th e cas e t hereaft er was as s ig n ed t o a p o l i ce

i n v es t i g at o r, wh o arran g ed fo r t h e s t ep d au gh t er t o u n d e r g o a fo ren s i c i n t erv i ew.

Du ri n g t h e fo ren s ic i n t erv iew, th e s t ep d au gh t er d es cri b ed t h e in ci den ts of ab u s e an d

m ark ed on an an at o m ical d rawi n g t h at Ram i rez h ad to u c h e d h e r ch es t area an d

g en it al s an d h ad to uch ed h er b o t t o m “ m ore t h an o n e t i m e.” Th e s t ep dau g ht er al s o

wro te a s h o rt s t at em en t d u ri n g t h e in t erv i ew d es cri b i n g an i n ci d en t i n wh i ch Ram i rez

k i s s ed h er o n t he m o ut h an d t o u ch ed h er g en i t al s wi t h h i s fi ng er.

Th e p o l i c e i n v es t i g at o r o b tai n ed a s earch warran t fo r Ram i rez’ s h o u s e an d

p h o t o g rap h ed a wo rk o u t b en ch i n t he g arag e an d o t h er feat u res of t h e ho u s e t h at h ad

b een d es cri b ed b y t h e s t ep dau g ht er in h er d is cl os u res ab o u t t h e s ex ual ab u s e.

Ad d i t i o n al l y

, a p ed i at r i c n urs e p ract i t i o n er co n du ct ed a ph y s i cal ex am o f t h e

s t ep d au g h t er an d n ot ed

, am o n g o t h er t h i n gs

, t h at s h e was ex t rem el y se n s i t i v e t o

t o u ch

, wh i ch “ us u al l y m ean s t h at t o u c h t o [ th e ch i ld ] i s pai n fu l.” T h e n u rs e

4p ract i t i o n er d i d n o t o b s erv e an y s i g n s o f p h y s i cal in j u ry

, b u t s h e ex p l a i n e d t h a t

n o rm al ex am r e s u l ts are very co m m o n wh en th ere are al l eg at i o ns o f ch i l d s ex u al

ab u se an d t h at h eal i n g can t ak e p l ace wi t h n o res i du al s i g n s o f i n ju ry

.

Ram i rez was arres t ed an d t ri ed o n th ree co u n ts of en t i ci n g a ch i l d fo r i n d ecen t

p u rp os es

, n i n e co u n t s o f ch i l d m o l es tat i o n

, an d o n e co u n t o f ag g rav at ed s ex u al

b at t ery

. Th e s t ep d au g ht er t es t i fi ed at t ri al an d d es cri b ed h o w Ram i rez h ad s ex u al l y

ab u sed h er, an d t h e s eco n d g rad e t each er, s ch o ol co u n s el o r, an d ch i l d p ro t ect i v e

s erv i ces i n ves t i gat o r t es t i fi ed ab o u t th e d i s c l o s u res th at t he s t ep d au g h t er m ad e to

t h em reg ard i ng t he ab u s e. Th e p ed iat ri c nu rs e pract i t i o n er t es t i fi ed ab o ut h er p h y s i cal

ex am i n at i o n o f th e s t ep d au gh t er, t h e p ol i ce i nv e s t i g at o r t es t i fi ed ab o u t h i s

i n v es t i g at i o n o f t h e ab u s e al l eg at i o ns

, an d a v i d eo reco rd i n g o f th e fo ren si c in t erv i ew

an d p h o t o g rap h s o f t h e ho u s e wh ere t h e ab u se o ccu rred were i n t ro du ced i n to

e v i d en ce. Ram i rez el ect ed t o t es t i fy an d d en i ed t h at h e h ad s ex u al ly ab u s ed hi s

s t ep d au g h t er. He d id n o t cal l an y o t h er d efen s e wi t n es s es

.

At t h e co n cl u si o n o f t he tri al

, t h e ju ry fo u nd Ram irez g u i l t y on al l o f t h e co u n t s

l i st ed ab o v e. Ram i rez fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, a s a m en d ed

, co n t en d i ng

, am o n g

o t h er t h in g s

, t hat hi s t ri al co u n s el h ad ren d e red i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce. Fo ll o wi n g a

5h eari n g in wh ich t ri al co u n s el

, Ram i rez, an d t he st ep d au g h ter’ s m ot h er t es ti fi ed

, t h e

t ri al co u rt d en i ed Ram i rez’ s am en d ed m ot i o n fo r n ew t ri al . Th i s ap p eal fo l l o wed

.

1

. Ram i rez co n t en d s t h a t t h e ev i d en ce was i ns u ffi ci en t t o su p p o rt h i s

co n vi ct i o n s fo r e n t i ci n g a ch i l d fo r i n d ecen t p urp o s es

, ch i l d m o l es t at i o n

, an d

ag g rav at ed s ex ual bat t ery b ecau s e t h e vi ct i m g a v e “ v ag u e, am b i g u ou s

, an d

i n co n s i s t en t t es t i m o n y .” W e d i s ag ree.

As o u r p reced en t m ak es cl ear, “ i t i s wi t h i n t h e pro v i nce o f t h e ju ry t o d et erm i n e

t h e cred ib i l i t y o f wi t n es s es

, i n cl u d in g t h e v i ct i m

, an d t h e wei gh t t o b e g i v en t o t h ei r

t es t i m o ny

. An ap p el l at e co u rt can n o t s u b s t i t u t e it s j u d gm en t fo r t h at o f t he ju ry ; we

n ei t h er wei g h t h e ev i d en ce n o r d et erm i n e t h e cred i bi l i t y of wi t n es s es .” (Ci t at i o n

o m it t ed .) Ha s l a m v. S t a t e

, 3 4 1 G a. Ap p

. 3 30

, 33 1 (8 0 1 SE2 d 6 1 ) (2 01 7 ). Here, t h e

ju ry h ad befo re i t fo r co n s i d erat i o n

, am o n g o t h er t h i n g s, t h e s tep d au g h t er’ s t es t i m o ny

reg ard i n g t h e s ex u al ab u s e, h er reco rd ed fo ren s i c i n t erv i ew, an d t h e t es t i m o n y o f t h e

s eco n d g rad e t e a c h er, t h e s ch o o l co u n sel o r, an d t h e ch il d p ro t ect i v e s erv i ces

i n v es t i g at o r ab o u t t h e s t ep dau g h t er’ s d i s cl os u res of ab us e to th e m

. G i v e n t h i s

co m b i ned ev id en ce, a rat i on al ju ry was au t h o ri zed t o f i n d Ram i rez g u i l ty b ey o n d a

reas on ab l e d o u b t o f t h e ch arg ed o ffen s es

. Ja cks o n v. Vi r g in 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 79 ). See OCGA § § 1 6 -6 -4 (a) (ch i l d m ol es t at i o n ); 1 6 -6 -5 (a)

6(en t i ci n g a ch i l d fo r i n decen t p u rp o s es ); 1 6 -6 -2 2 .2 (b ) (ag g rav at ed s ex u al b at t ery );

Ro b in s o n v. S t a t e

, 3 4 2 G a. Ap p

. 6 24

, 62 9 (1 ) (8 0 5 SE2 d 1 0 3) (2 0 1 7 ) (ju ry co u ld

co n si d er v i ct i m ’ s p ri o r o u t-o f-co u rt al l eg at i o n s o f s ex u al ab u s e m ad e du ri n g fo ren s i c

i n t erv i ew an d t o i nv es t i ga tor a s su b s t an t i v e ev i den ce u n der th e Ch i l d Hears ay St at u t e,

OCGA § 2 4 -8 -8 2 0 ); Ki r

kl an d v. S t a t e

, 3 3 4 Ga. Ap p

. 2 6

, 3 3 (3 ) (7 7 8 SE2 d 4 2) (2 0 1 5 )

(ju ry co u l d co n s id er v i ct i m ’ s “ p ri o r o u t -o f-co u rt st at em en ts ab o u t t h e ab u s e”); Ru f f in

v. S ta t e

, 3 3 3 Ga. Ap p

. 7 9 3

, 7 9 3 (1 ) (7 7 7 SE2 d 2 6 2 ) (2 0 15 ) (n o t i n g i n cas e wh ere

d efen d an t was fo u n d gu i l t y of ch i l d m o l es t at io n

, ag g rav at ed s ex u al b at t ery

, an d o t h er

s ex u al o ffen ses t h at th e “ v ic t i m ’ s tes t i m o n y

, s t an d i n g al o n e, wo u l d h av e b een

s u ffi ci en t t o au t ho ri ze a v erd i ct o f g u i l t y ”).

2

. Ram i rez co n ten d s t hat h i s co n s ti t ut i o n al ri g h t t o b e p res en t at al l cri t i cal

s t ag es o f t h e t ri al p ro ceed i ng s w a s v i o l a t e d b ecau s e h e was n o t pres en t at a b en ch

c o n feren ce d u ri n g vo i r d ire wh ere th e p ro s ecu t o r’ s reas o n s fo r st ri k i n g a p o t en t i al

ju ro r were d i s cu s s ed . Ag ai n , we d is ag ree.

Du ri n g t h e v o i r d i re of t h e ju ry p an el

, th e p ro s ec u t o r as k ed t o ap p ro ach t h e

b en ch

. On ce t h e p ro s ecu t o r an d d efen s e co un s el were p res en t at t he b en ch wi t h t h e

t ri al co urt an d co u rt rep o rt er, t h e fo l l o wi n g co l l o qu y b et ween t he pro s ecu to r an d t h e

t ri al co u rt t ran s p i red :

7PROSECUTOR: Yo u r Ho n o r, Th e St at e i s read y to p i ck th e ju ry , b u t I

k n o w t h e Co u rt g en eral l y d o es p u bl i c s t ri kes i n t h e co u rt ro o m

, an d I

wan t ed to p u t o n t h e reco rd t h at i t wo u l d b e t h e St at e’ s in t en t t o s t ri ke

[o n e o f t h e p o ten t i al ju ro rs ]

. I d o n ’ t t h i n k I’ v e p u t m y s el f i n a p os i t i o n

wh ere I co u l d b e accu s ed o f Ba ts o n p ro bab l y i n t h e l as t fi ft een y ears

, b u t

s h e ap p ears t o b e t h e o n l y Hi s p an i c p ers o n o n t h e ju ry

, an d i t wo u l d be

t h e St at e’ s i n t en t t o s t ri k e h er. I wa n t ed t o i nfo rm t h e Co u rt an d th e

d efen s e o n t h e fro n t en d t h at I k n o w fo r a fact t h at [t h e p o t en t i al ju ro r]

wen t t o Cal h o u n Hi g h Sch o o l wi t h [t h e st ep d au g h t er’ s m o t h er an d au n t ]

,

b o t h o f wh o m [t he p o t en t i al ju ro r] d en ied k n o wi n g wh en s h e was as k ed

b y b o t h t h e St at e an d t h e d efen s e. An d I h av e i n th e co u rt ro o m [t he

s t ep dau g h t er’ s fat h er]

. He al s o wen t t o Cal h o u n H i gh Sch o o l w i t h th e

t h ree of t h em

. [Th e p o ten t i al ju ro r] was fri en d s w i t h h i s ex -wi fe an d h i s

ex -s is t er-i n -l aw an d t h e fact t h at s he’ s no t own in g u p t o k n o wi n g t hes e

p eo p l e m ak es m e v ery u n co m fo rt ab l e an d h e d o es n o t wan t h er o n h i s

d au g h t er’ s ju ry

.

COURT: W el l

, t h at ’ s cert ai n l y an i n d ep en d en t reas o n

. I d o n’ t kn o w t hat

t h ere’ s b een an y Ba t

so n ch al l en g e m ad e at t h i s p o i nt

.

PROS ECUTOR: I ju s t wan t ed t o i n fo rm t h e Co u rt becau s e I k n o w we

g en eral l y d o t h es e pu bl i cal l y

, an d I d i d n ’ t wan t t o p u t [d efen se co u n s el ]

o r t h e Co u rt i n a p o s i t i o n –

COURT: Oh

. W el l

, h e cert ai n l y

– o n ce we co m pl et e t h e s t r i k es

, i f he

wan t s t o m ak e an y t y

p e o f m o t i o n fo r t he reco rd

, h e can

, b u t y o u r

reas o n i ng h as b een s t at ed fo r t h e reco rd at t h is p o i n t i n t i m e.

8PROSECUTOR: Yes , s i r.

Th e t ri al co u rt t h en i n fo rm ed d efen s e co u ns el o f th e co urt ’ s p ro ced ure i n t h e

co u rt ro o m fo r s t ri k i n g j uro rs

, an d t h e b en ch co n feren ce co n cl u ded

. Ram i rez was n ot

p res en t at t h e b en ch co n feren ce an d d i d n o t hear wh at tran sp i red

. T h e p o ten t i al ju ro r

was l at er s t ru ck fro m th e ju ry p an el b y t h e p ro s ecu t o r wi th n o o b ject i o n fro m d efen s e

co u ns el

.

Ram i re z m a i n t ai n s t h at h e s h o ul d h av e been p res en t at t h e b en ch co n feren ce

an d t hat h i s co n s t i t u t i o n al ri g h t s were v io l at ed b ecau s e o f h i s ab s en ce. “ Th e ri g h t to

b e p res en t at tach es at an y s t ag e o f a cri m i nal p ro ceed in g t h at i s cri t i cal t o i t s o u t co m e

i f t h e d efen dan t ’ s p res en ce wo u l d co nt ri b u t e t o t h e f a i r n es s o f th e p ro ced u re.”

(Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i tt ed .) Hu f f v. S t a t e

, 2 7 4 Ga. 1 1 0

, 1 1 1 ( 2 ) (5 4 9 SE2 d

3 7 0 ) (2 0 0 1 ). An d

, “ [i ] t

. . . h a s l o n g b een es t ab l i s h ed th at p ro ceed i n gs at wh i ch t h e

ju ry co m p o s i t i on i s s el ect ed o r ch an g ed are cri t i cal s t ag es at wh i ch t h e d efen d an t i s

en t i t l ed t o b e p res en t

. ” (Ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Za mo r a v. S t a t e

, 2 9 1 Ga.

5 1 2

, 5 1 8 (7 ) (b ) (7 3 1 SE2 d 6 58 ) (2 0 1 2). See S a mmo n s v. S t a te

, 2 7 9 Ga. 3 86

, 3 8 7 (2 )

(6 1 2 SE2 d 7 8 5 ) (2 0 0 5 ). A d efen d an t t h erefo re h as t h e ri g h t t o b e p res en t at a b en ch

co n feren ce wh ere, as i n t h e p r e s e n t cas e, t h e t o p i c o f s t ri k i n g a p o t en t i al ju ro r i s

9d i s cu s s ed

. See Mu rp h y v. S t a t e

, 2 9 9 Ga. 2 3 8

, 2 4 1 (2 ) (7 8 7 S E 2 d 7 2 1 ) (2 0 1 6 )

(d efen d an t h ad ri gh t t o b e p res en t at s ev era l b en ch “ co n feren ces [t h at ] occu rred

d u ri n g ju ry s el ect i o n

, at a t i m e wh en t h e t ri al ju dg e a n d c o u ns el w ere d i s cu s s i n g

p o t en t i al m o t i o n s t o s t ri k e v en i re m em b ers fo ll o wi n g t h e g en eral v o i r d i re”);

Heywo o d v. S t a t e , 2 9 2 Ga. 77 1

, 7 7 4 (3 ) (7 4 3 SE2 d 1 2 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (d efen d an t h ad ri g ht

t o b e p res en t at b en ch co n feren ce d u ri n g v o i r di re wh ere “ t h e t o p i c i n cl u ded wh et h er

t o rep l ace [cert ai n ] p ro s p ect i ve ju ro rs ”). Co m p are Ben n et t v. St a te

, 2 7 9 Ga. Ap p

. 3 7 1,

3 7 4 -3 7 5 ( 4 ) (6 3 1 SE2 d 4 02 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (d efen d an t di d n o t h av e ri g h t t o b e p res en t at

b en ch co n feren ce d u ri n g v o i r d i r e w h e r e t ri al co u rt s i m p l y as k ed at t o rn ey s i f t h ey

w o u l d li k e t o fu rt h er q u es t i o n a p ot en t i al ju ro r, aft er w h i ch t he p o t en t i al ju ro r w a s

q u es ti o n ed at l en g t h i n o p en co u rt ).

No t ab l y

, h o wev er, t he ri g h t t o b e p res en t at a cr i t i c a l s t ag e of a cri m i n al

p ro ceed in g b el o n gs t o t he d efen d an t , wh o

i s free to rel i n q u i s h t h at ri g h t i f h e o r s h e s o ch oo s es

. Th e ri g h t i s wai v ed

i f t h e d efen d an t p ers o n al l y wai v es i t i n co u rt ; i f co u n s el wai v es i t at th e

d efen d an t ’ s ex p res s d i rect i o n ; i f co un s el wai v es i t i n o p en co u rt w h i l e

t h e d efen d an t i s p res en t ; o r i f co u n s el wai v es i t an d t h e d efen d an t

s u b s eq u en t l y

acq u ies ces i n t h e wai ver.

10Mu r

p h y

, 2 9 9 Ga. at 2 4 1 (2 ). An d

, h e r e

, t he reco rd refl ect s t h at d efen s e co u n s el

wai v ed Ram i rez’ s ri gh t t o be p res en t at t h e b en ch co n feren ce at Ram i rez’ s ex p res s

d i rect i o n

.

Du ri n g an o t h er b en ch co n f e r e n ce th at o ccu rred l at er i n t h e t ri al

, d efen s e

co u ns el s t at ed :

I’ v e ex p l ai n ed t o m

y cl i en t t h at

, wh en we h av e a b en ch co n feren ce, h e

h a s a n a b s o l u t e ri g h t t o b e p res en t i f h e wi s h ed t o d o s o, b u t I’ v e t o l d

h i m I wo u ld ex p l ai n t o h i m an d h e’ s in ag reem e n t wi t h m e s im p l y

d i s cu s s i n g i t wi t h h i m

at t h e t ab l e rat h er t h an b ei n g u p h ere.

At t h e h eari n g o n t h e m o t i on fo r n ew t ri al

, d efen s e co u n s el tes t ifi ed t h at wh i l e h e d id

n o t s p eci fi cal l y reco l l ect reach i n g t h i s ag reem en t wi t h Ram i rez ab o ut h o w t o h an d l e

b en ch co n feren ces

, “ if I s ai d i t

, I d i d i t

. I m ean

, I wo ul d n’ t m ak e a m i s rep res en t at i o n

[t o] t h e Co u rt .” Defen s e co un s el fu rt h er t es t i fi ed th at hi s co n vers at i on wi t h Ram i rez

ab o ut w ai v i n g h i s p res en c e a t b en ch co n feren ces wo ul d h av e o ccu rred b efo re t ri al

,

an d t h at Ram i rez i n d icat ed t h at h e was fi n e w i t h h av i n g co un s el “ g o u p an d s p eak i n g

d i rect l y t o t h e Co u rt ” b ecau s e “ [i ] f t h e cl i en t ev er s ay s

, I wan t t o b e p res en t

, I m ak e

t h e Co u rt aware.” Ad d it i o n al l y

, d efen s e c o u n s el tes t ifi ed t h at i t i s h i s s t an d ard

p ract i ce b efo re tri al t o di s cu s s wi t h h i s cl i en t s t hei r ri g h t t o be p res en t at b en ch

11co n feren ces an d h i s reas o n s fo r wh y h e p refers fo r t h e m n o t t o b e pres en t

, 1 an d to

i n fo rm th e co urt i f a cl i en t i n d i cat es t o h i m aft er t h ei r d i s cu s s i o n t h at t h e cl i en t wo u ld

l i ke t o at t en d t h e co n feren ces

.

Th i s reco rd s u p p o rt s t h e co n cl u s i o n t h at d efen s e co u n s el reach ed an ag reem en t

wi t h Ram i rez b efo re t ri al t h at o n l y co u n s el w o u l d at t en d t h e b en ch co n feren ces an d

wo u l d t h en i n fo rm Ra m i rez o f wh at h ad b een d i s cu s s ed

. To th e ex t en t t hat d efen s e

co u ns el d i d n o t s p e ci fi cal l y reco l l ect reach i n g t h e ag reem en t wi t h Ram i rez, h i s

t es t i m o ny co n cern i ng h is s t an d ard p ract i ce an d p ro ced u re au t h o ri zed th e tri al co u rt

t o co n cl u d e t h a t s u ch an ag reem en t h ad been reach ed

. See Ja cks on v. Ho p p er

, 2 4 3

Ga. 4 1

, 4 1 -4 2 (2 52 SE2 d 4 6 7 ) (1 9 7 9 ) (d efen s e co u n s e l ’s t es t i m o n y o f hi s g en eral

p o l i cy i n ad v i si n g d efen d an t s was s uffi ci en t t o s u pp o rt fi n d i n g t hat t h e d efen d an t in

t h at c a s e h ad been si m i l arl y ad v i s ed

, ev en t h o u g h co u n s el h ad “ n o i n d ep en d en t

reco l l ect i o n ” o f h i s co n v ers at io n wi t h t h e defen d an t ); W i l li a ms v. St a te

, 3 3 4 Ga. Ap p.

3 1 1

, 3 1 2

- 3 1 3 (7 7 9 SE2 d 9 1 ) (2 0 1 5 ) (d efen s e co u n s el ’ s t es ti m o n y reg ard i n g h i s

g en eral p ract ice wh e n i n t eract i n g wi t h cl i en ts was s uffi ci en t t o s h o w h ow co u n s el

1 Defen s e co un s el t es t i fi ed t h at i t i s h is s tan d ard p ract ice t o m ak e s u re t h at h i s

cl i en ts wh o h av e rem ai n ed i n jai l p en di n g t ri al u n d ers t an d t h at h e p refers fo r t h em n ot

t o co m e fo rward d u ri n g b en ch co n feren ces b ecau s e “ wh en an in m at e i s i ncarcerat ed

, d ep ut i es wi l l ap p ro ach

, an d t h ere’ s an ap p earan ce t h at I d o n ’ t wan t a ju ry s eei n g .”

12i n t eract ed wi t h t h e sp eci fi c d efen d an t i n t h at cas e). See al so Ba zemo r e v. S ta t e

, 2 7 3

Ga. 1 6 0

, 1 6 2 (1 ) (5 3 5 SE2 d 76 0 ) (2 0 0 0 ) (“ Cert ai n l y

, ev i den ce o f a ro u t i ne o r s t an d ard

p ract i ce o r p ro ced u re can b e u sed i n d em o n s t rat i ng c o m p li an ce wi t h co n s t i t u t i o n al

s t an d ard s .”). A cco rd i n g l y

, t he reco rd refl ect s th at d efen s e co un s el wai ved Ram i rez’ s

ri gh t t o b e p res en t at ben ch co n f e r e n c e s at t he ex p res s d i rect i o n o f Ram i rez, an d

Ram i rez t h u s rel in q u i s h ed an y co n s t i t u t i on al ri g ht h e had to at t en d t h e b en ch

co n feren ce i n w h ich t h e p ro s ecu t o r’ s reas o n s fo r s t ri k i n g t h e p o t en t i al ju ro r were

d i s cu s s ed

. See Ha mp t o n v. S t a t e

, 2 8 2 Ga. 4 9 0

, 4 9 2 (2 ) ( a ) ( 6 5 1 S E2 d 6 9 8) (2 0 0 7 )

(d efen d an t wai v ed ri g h t t o b e p res en t d u ri n g i n t erv i ews wi t h i n d iv i d ual ju ro rs wh ere

d e fen dan t “ p ers o n al l y an d affi rm at i v el y wai v ed h i s ri g h t to b e p res en t

. . . a n d

ex p res s l y d i rect ed h i s co u n s el t o wai v e h is ri g h t t o b e p res en t ”); B a i l ey v. S t a t e

, 2 4 9

Ga. 5 3 5

, 5 3 9 (6 ) (2 9 1 SE2 d 7 0 4) (1 9 8 2 ) (d efen d an t wai v ed ri g h t t o b e pres en t d u ri n g

an i n -ch am

b ers h eari n g of cert ai n m o t i o ns b ecau se defen s e co u ns el

, aft er co n ferri n g

wi t h t h e d efen dan t

, o b t ai n ed h i s “ ex p res s perm is s i o n ” t o p ro ceed wi t h t h e m o t i on s

h eari n g wi t h ou t t he d efen dan t bei n g pres en t ). Co m p are Pen n ie v. S t a t e

, 2 7 1 Ga. 4 1 9,

4 2 2 (2 ) (5 2 0 SE2 d 4 4 8 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (co u n s el ’ s at tem pt ed wai v er o f d efen d an t ’ s ri g ht to

13b e p res en t was i n v al i d b ecau s e i t “ was m ad e wi t h o u t t h e k n o wl ed ge o r co n s en t o f t h e

d efen d an t ”). 2

3

. Ram i rez co n t en d s t h at d efen s e co u ns el ren d ered i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce in

s ev eral res p ect s . W e are u n p ers u ad ed

.

To p rev ai l on t h i s cl ai m

, [Ram i rez] b ears t h e b urd en of p ro v i n g

b o t h t h at t h e p erfo rm an ce o f h is l awy er was d efi ci en t an d t hat h e

s u ffered p reju di ce as a res u lt o f t h i s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce. S t r i ckl a n d

v. W a s h i n g to n

, 4 6 6 U.S. 6 6 8

, 6 8 7 (III) (1 0 4 S C t 2 0 5 2

, 8 0 LE2 d 6 7 4 )

(1 9 8 4 ). To d em o n s t rat e d efi ci en t perfo rm an ce, [Ram i rez] m u st p ro ve

t h at h is l awy er’ s fai l u re . .

. was o bject i v el y u nreas on ab l e, co n s i d eri n g

al l o f t h e ci rcu m s tan ces an d i n l i g h t of p rev ai l i n g p ro fes s i o n al n o rm s

.

An d t o s h o w t h at p reju d i ce res u l t ed fro m t hi s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce,

[Ram i rez] m

u s t p ro v e t h at t h ere i s a reas o n ab le p ro b ab il i ty t h at

, b u t fo r

co u n s el ’ s u n p ro fes s i o n al erro rs

, t h e res u l t of t he p ro ceed i ng wo u l d h av e

b een d i fferen t

. A reas on ab l e p r o b a b i l i t y i s a p ro b ab i l i t y s u ffi ci en t t o

u n d erm in e co n fi d en ce i n t h e o u t co m e.

(Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Bu rn s v. S t a te

, 3 42 Ga. Ap p . 3 7 9 , 3 8 3 -3 8 4 (1 )

(8 0 3 SE2 d 7 9 ) (2 0 1 7 ). “ If a d efen d an t fai l s t o m e e t h i s b u r d en o n o n e p ro ng o f t h e

2 Ram i rez arg ues t h at an y wai v e r o f h i s p res en ce at ben ch co n feren ces was

co n di t i o n ed on d efen s e co u n s el i n fo rm i n g h i m of t h e s ub s tan ce o f t h o s e co n feren ces

, wh i ch Ram i rez t es t i fi ed at t h e n ew t ri al h eari n g n ev er o ccu rred

. An y q u es t i o n as t o

wh et h er d efen s e co u n s el u l ti m at el y carri ed t hro u g h wi t h h i s p ro m i se t o i n fo rm

Ram i rez o f th e s u b s t an ce o f th e b en ch co n feren ces g oes t o t h e i ss u e o f i n effect i v e

as s i s tan ce o f co u n s el , wh i ch we d i scu s s i n fra i n Di v i si on 3 (c).

14t wo -p ro ng tes t, t h en t he o th er p ro n g n eed n o t b e rev i ewed b y t h e co u rt .” (Ci tat i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Lo ckr i d g e v. S t a t e

, 3 3 5 Ga. Ap p

. 6 11

, 6 1 3 (2 ) (7 82 SE2 d 6 7 4 )

(2 0 1 6). In ad d res s i ng cl ai m s o f i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co u ns el

, we rev i ew t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s l eg al co n cl u s i o n s de n o vo an d i ts fact u al fi n d i n g s u nd er t h e cl earl y erro n eo u s

s t an d ard

. El l i s o n v. S t a te

, 2 9 6 G a. Ap p

. 7 5 2

, 7 5 5 (2 ) (6 7 5 SE2 d 6 1 3) (2 0 0 9). Gu i d ed

b y t h es e p ri n ci p l es

, w e t u rn t o Ram i rez’ s spe c if i c a lle ga ti o n s o f in effect i v e as s i s t an ce.

(a) Ram i rez co n t en d s t hat d efen s e co u n s el was d efi ci en t b ecau se h e fai l ed to

s u ffi ci en t l y in ves ti g at e t he fact s o f t h e cas e o r co ns u lt wi t h h i m as part o f t h e

p rep arat i o n fo r t ri al

.

We st ro n g ly p res u m e t h at t h e t ri al co un s el ren d ered ad eq u a t e

as s i s t an ce a nd m ad e al l s i g n i fi can t d eci s i o n s i n t he ex erci s e o f

reas o n ab l e p ro fes s i o n al ju d g m en t

. In reg ar d s t o p re-t ri al p rep arat i o n

,

co u n s el h as a d u ty t o m ak e reas o n ab l e i n v e s t i g at i o n s o r t o m ak e a

reas o n ab l e d eci s i on t h at m ak es p art i cu l ar i n v es t i g at i o ns u n n eces s ary

.

(Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i tt e d

. ) Lo ckr id g e

, 33 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 61 3 (2 ).

Ad d i t i o n al l y , “ [t ] h ere ex i s t s n o m ag i c am o u n t of t i m e wh i ch co u ns el m u s t s p en d i n

act u al co n feren ce wi t h h i s cl i en t .” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed

. ) Da vi s v. S t a t e

,

2 9 5 Ga. 1 6 8

, 1 7 1 (3 ) (b ) (7 58 SE2 d 2 9 6 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

15Here, t h e reco rd s ho ws t h at th e d efen s e co u ns el h i red b y Ram irez t o rep res en t

h i m at tri al h ad been a p ract i ci n g l awy er s in ce 1 9 92 an d h ad t ri ed o v er t wo h u n d red

ju ry t ri al s

, i n cl u d i n g m

u l t i p le ch i l d m o l es t at i o n t ri al s b e f o r e t h e p res en t cri m i n al

p ro ceed in g s

. At t h e n ew t ri al h e a r i n g

, d efen se co u n s el t es ti fi ed th at b efo re t h e

cri m i n al t ri al

, he an d Ram irez at t en ded l e n g t hy ju v en i le co u rt dep ri v at i o n

p ro ceed in g s t h at a d d r es s ed t h e s am e al l eg at i o n s o f s ex ual ab u s e an d i n v o l v ed

v i rt u al l y al l o f th e s am e wi t n es ses

, i n cl u d i n g t h e s t ep dau gh t er. Acco rd i n g t o d efen s e

co u ns el

, t h e p res en t cas e w as “ ex t rem el y u n us u al ” becau s e h e wa s ab l e t o h ear

“ es sen t ial l y [ ] al l o f t h e ev i d en ce m o n t h s i n ad van ce o f t h e cri m i n al tri al ” t h ro u g h t h e

t es t i m o ny i n t h e ju v en i l e co u rt p ro ceed i n g s

, an d h e was af f o r d e d a n o pp o rt u n i t y in

t h o s e p ro ceed in gs t o cro s s -ex am i n e t h e s t ep d au g h t er an d o t h er wi t n es s es

. In es s en ce,

d efen s e co u n s el t es ti fi ed , h e g o t a “ free bi t e at t h e ap p l e.” In ad d it io n t o h av i n g t h e

o p p o rt u ni t y t o p rev i ew t he ev i d en ce an d cro s s -ex am i n e t h e St at e’ s w i tn es s es t h ro u g h

t h e ju v en i l e co u rt p ro ceed i n g s

, d efen s e co u n s el t es t i fi ed t hat h e recei ved t h e St at e’ s

cas e fi l e an d rev iewed i t wi t h Ram i rez i n p rep arat i o n o f t h e cas e, an d h e in v es t i g at ed

t h e d i s cl o s u res th at t h e s t ep d au g h t er h ad m ad e to v ari o us wi t n es s es an d s p o k e t o h er

fam i l y m em b ers

, i n cl u d i n g t h e s t ep d au g h ter’ s m o th er.

16Defen s e co u n s el fu rt her t es t i fi ed th at d u ri n g t h e m u lt i pl e h eari n gs h el d i n t h i s

cas e an d d uri ng t h e b reak s i n t h e l en g t h y ju v en i le co u rt p ro ceed i n g s

, h e h ad s ev eral

d i s cu s s i o n s wi t h Ram i rez ab o u t t ri al s t rat eg y an d p ot en t i al d efen s e wi t n es s es

.

De f e n s e co u n s el n o t ed t h at Ram i rez h ad a co u rt -ap p o i n t ed i n t erp ret er d u ri n g co u rt

p ro ceed in g s

, an d co u n s el co u l d s p eak Sp an i s h an d Ram ir e z a l s o co u l d s p eak s o m e

En g li s h . Al t h o u g h d efen s e co u n s el d i d n o t recal l wh et h er h e v is i ted Ram i rez at t h e

jai l p ri o r t o t ri al

, h e t es t i fi ed t hat h i s s t an d ard p ract i ce was t o m eet ro ut i n el y wi t h h i s

cl i en ts i n prep ara t i o n f

o r t ri al

, an d t h at he was s u re t hat h e “ h ad m an y

, m an y

co n vers at i on s wi t h [Ram i rez] o v er t h at p eri o d o f t i m e” i n t h e co u rt ro o m du ri n g t h e

“ ex t en s i v e h o u rs ” s p en t i n t he ju v en i le co u rt p ro ceed i n g s an d h eari n g s i n t he cri m i n al

cas e.

Bas ed o n t h i s reco rd

, t h e t ri al co u rt was au t h o ri zed t o fi n d th at d efen s e co u n s el

p erfo rm ed a reas o n ab l e i n v es t i g at i o n an d s uffi ci en t ly co n s u l t ed wi t h Ram i rez ab o ut

t h e cas e. W h i l e Ram i rez t es t i fi ed at t h e n ew t ri al heari n g th at h e an d d efen s e co u n s el

h ad o n l y b ri ef co nv ers at i o n s an d t h at h i s co u n sel n e v er d i s cu ss ed t ri al s t rat eg y o r

p o t en t i al wi t n es s es w i t h h im

, 3 d efen s e co u n s el t es t i fi ed o t h er wi s e, an d “ i t i s t h e

3 Ram irez tes ti fi ed th at d efen s e co u n s el n ev er v i si ted h i m at t h e jai l an d

i n t ro du ced t h e jai l vi s i t or lo g in t o ev id en ce at th e n ew tri al heari n g t o su p p o r t h i s

t es t i m o ny

. Ho wev er, reg ard les s o f wh et h er defen s e co u ns el v i s i t ed Ram i rez

17fu n ct i o n o f t h e t ri al co u rt at t h e h e ari ng o n t h e m o t io n fo r n ew t ri al to d et erm i n e

wi t n es s cred i b i l i t y an d t o res o l v e an y co n fl ict s i n t h e t es t i m o n y .” Mo b l ey v. S t a t e

, 2 6 4

Ga. 85 4

, 8 5 6 (2 ) (4 5 2 SE2 d 50 0 ) (1 9 9 5 ). Acco rd i n g l y

, Ram i rez fai l ed t o es tab l i s h t h at

d efen s e co u n s el was d efi ci en t i n h i s i n v es t i g at i o n o f t h e cas e an d h i s co n s ul t at i on s

wi t h Ram i rez.

(b ) Ram i rez al so co n t en ds t h at d efen s e co u n s el was d efi ci en t i n fai l i n g t o cal l

t h e s t ep d au g h ter’ s m o t h er, wh o was Ram i rez’ s wi fe, t o t e s t i fy at t ri al b ecau s e s h e

wo u l d h av e cas t d o u b t o n t he v al i d i t y o f t he ab u s e al l eg at i o n s

.

“ Deci si o n s ab o u t wh i ch wi t n es s es t o cal l at t ri al are m at t ers o f t ri al s t rat eg y an d

t a c t i cs

, an d s u ch s trat eg i c an d t act i cal d eci s i o n s d o n o t am ou n t t o d efi c i e n t

p erfo rm an ce un l es s t h ey are s o u n reas o n ab l e t h at n o co m p et en t at t o rn ey wo u l d h av e

m ad e t h em u n d er s i m i l ar ci rcu m s t an ces .” (Ci t at io n an d p un ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .)

McDu ff i e v. S t at e

, 29 8 G a. 1 1 2

, 1 1 6 (2 ) ( 7 7 9 SE2 d 6 2 0) (2 0 1 5 ). “ An d t h e fact t h at

p res en t co u n s el d i s ag rees wi t h t ri al co u n s el ’ s s t rat eg y d oes n o t ren d er s uch s t rat eg i c

d eci s i o n u n reas o n ab le.” (Fo o t n o t e an d pu n ct uat i o n om i t t ed .) En t wi s l e v. S t a t e , 3 4 0

Ga. Ap p . 1 2 2 , 1 2 8 (1 ) (a) (7 9 6 SE2 d 7 4 3 ) (2 0 1 7 ).

s p eci fi cal l y at t h e jai l

, co u n sel t es t i fi ed t hat he had n u m e r o u s co n v ers at io n s wi th

Ram i rez i n t he co u rt ro om , as p rev i o u s l y d i s cu s s ed

.

18At t h e new t ri al heari n g

, t h e m o t h er tes t i fi ed t h at sh e m et w i t h d efen s e co u n s el

b efo re t ri al an d i n fo rm ed h im t hat h er d au g h t er h ad s t at ed th at s h e d i d n o t k n o w wh y

s h e h ad m ad e t h e al leg at i o n s ag ai n s t Ram i rez, t hat s h e wan t ed t o g et Ram i rez in

t ro u b l e, an d t hat t h e d ev i l was m ak i n g h er accu s e h i m

. Th e m o t her al s o t es t i fi ed t h at

h er d au g h t er t o l d h er t h at sh e h ad wi tn es s ed o t h er rel at i ves h av i n g sex

. Acco rd i n g to

t h e m o t h er, i f s he h a d b e e n c al l ed as a d efen se w it nes s at tri al

, s h e wo u l d h av e

t es t i fi ed ab o u t t h es e s t at em en t s m ad e b y h er d au g h ter.

Ho wev er, d efen s e co u n s el t es t i fi ed at th e new tri al h eari n g t h a t b a s e d o n t h e

t es t i m o ny t h at t h e s t ep d au gh t er’ s m o t h er h ad gi ven i n th e ju v en i l e co urt pro ceed i n g s

,

i n cl u d i n g n eg at i v e st at em en t s s h e h ad m ad e ab o u t Ram i rez, h e h ad d et erm i n ed t h at

s h e wo u l d n ot b e a fav o rab l e w i t n e s s

. Acco rd in g t o defen s e co u n s el

, t h e m o t h er’ s

n eg at i v e t es ti m o n y wo u l d h a v e o u t wei gh ed an y p o s i t i v e t es t i m on y an d h e i n s t ead

d eci d ed t o try t o i n t ro du ce t h e s am e ev i den ce th ro u g h o t h er wi t n es ses

. In t h i s reg ard

,

t h e t ri al reco rd refl ect s t h at d efen se co u n s el el i ci ted fro m th e s t ep d au g h t er o n cro s s

ex am i n at i o n t h at s h e h ad t o l d s o m eo ne t hat t h e d ev i l m ad e h er s ay t he al leg at i o n s.

In l i g h t of t h is reco rd

, Ram i rez h as fai l ed t o s h o w t h at h i s co u n s el ’ s s t rat eg i c

d eci s i o n no t to cal l t h e s t ep d au g h t er’ s m o t h er was s o u n reas on ab l e th at n o co m p et en t

at t o rn ey wo u l d hav e m ad e t h e s am e d eci s i o n

, an d h e t h erefo re can n o t es tab l i s h t h at

19h i s co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce was d efi ci en t

. See McDu f f i e

, 2 9 8 Ga. at 1 1 6 (2 ); Da vi s v.

S t a t e

, 25 3 G a

. A p p

. 8 0 3, 8 1 0 (1 5 ) (c) (5 60 SE2 d 71 1 ) (2 0 02 ). Fu rt h erm o re, “ t h e

fai l u re t o p res en t cu m

u lat i v e ev i d en ce t h ro u gh ad d i t io n al wi t n es s t es t i m o ny d o es n ot

am ou n t to i n effect i v e as si s t an ce o f co u n s el ,” Ki n g v. S t a t e , 3 2 0 Ga. Ap p

. 90

, 9 6 (4 )

(c) (i ) (7 39 SE2 d 6 5 4 ) (2 0 13 ), an d h e r e

, a s n o t ed ab o v e, t h e st ep d au g h t er h ers el f

t es t i fi ed t h at s h e to l d s o m eo n e t h at t h e dev i l m ad e h er s ay t h e al leg at io n s

. H e n ce,

Ram i rez can n o t s h o w p reju d ice res u l t i n g fro m t he fai l u re t o cal l t h e s t ep dau g h t er’ s

m o th er t o t es t i fy

ab o u t t h at s am e s t at em en t

. See i d

.

(c) Ram irez m ai nt ai n s t h at h i s t ri al co u n sel was d efi ci en t i n fai l i n g t o d i s cu ss

wi t h h im t h e s ub s t an ce o f t h e b en ch co n feren ce wh ere t h e p ro s ecu to r ex pl ai n ed wh y

s h e h ad d eci d ed to s t ri k e t h e p o ten t i al ju ro r wh o w as Hi s p an i c. Acco rd i n g to Ram i rez,

i f h e h ad b een ap p ri s ed o f t h e p ro s ecu t o r’ s as s ert ed reas o n s fo r s t ri k i n g t h e p o t en t i al

ju ro r, h e “ m ay

h av e b een ab l e t o refu s e t h o se as s ert i o n s

, an d t h ereb y p ut h e an d h i s

at t o rn ey i n a p o s i t i o n t o ch al l en g e t h e s t ri k e.”

At t h e n ew t ri al h eari n g, Ram i rez tes t ifi ed t h at d efen se co u n sel d i d n o t i n fo rm

h i m o f th e s u b s t an ce o f t h e b en ch co n feren ce. Bu t

, d efen s e co u n s el t es t i fi ed a t t h e

h eari n g t h at wh i l e h e di d n o t recal l wh et h er h e d i s cu s s ed t h e b en ch co n feren ce ab o ut

t h e p ot en t i al ju ro r wi t h Ram irez, i t was h i s s tan d ard p ract i ce an d p ro ced u re t o d i s cu ss

20t h e s u b s t an ce o f b en ch co n feren ces wi t h h i s cl i en t s

. As p rev i o us l y n o t ed

, i t i s t h e ro l e

o f t h e t ri al co u rt t o d et erm i n e i s s u es of wi t n es s cred i b i l i t y an d res ol v e co n fl i ct s i n t h e

t e s t i m on y p res en ted at th e n ew t ri al heari n g

. Mo b l ey

, 2 6 4 Ga. at 8 5 6 (2 ). Th e tri al

co u rt t h u s was en t it led t o cred i t t h e t es t i m o n y o f d efen s e co u ns el reg ard i n g h i s

s t an d ard p r a c t i c e s o v er t h at o f Ram irez an d fi n d t h at co u n sel d id d i scu s s t h e

s u b s t an ce o f t h e co nferen ce wi t h Ram i rez. See Per ez v. S t a t e

, 33 1 Ga. Ap p

. 1 6 4

, 1 6 9

(3 ) (b ) (7 7 0 SE 2 d 2 6 0 ) ( 2 0 1 5 ); Ru d o l p h v. S t a t e

, 3 1 3 G a. Ap p

. 4 11

, 4 1 3 (2 ) (7 2 1

SE2 d 6 2 5) (2 0 1 1)

Fu rt herm o r e, Ram i rez d i d n o t o ffer an y t es t i m o ny at th e n ew t ri al heari n g ab o ut

wh at s p eci fi c i n fo rm at i o n h e co u l d h av e p ro v id ed t o d efen s e co u n s el t h at wo u l d h av e

l ed t o a ch al l en g e o f t h e p ro s ecu t o r’ s st ri k e o f t h e p o ten t i al ju ro r. “ Mere sp ecu l at i o n

wi l l n o t su p p o rt a cl ai m o f i n effect i v e as s is t an ce o f co u ns el .” H er n a nd ez v. S t a t e

, 3 0 3

Ga. Ap p . 1 0 3 , 1 0 6 (2 ) (6 9 2 SE2 d 7 1 2 ) (2 0 1 0 ). Ram i rez th u s has fai l ed t o s h o w an y

p reju d i ce res u l ti n g fro m d efen s e co un s el ’ s al l eg ed fai l u re t o i n fo rm h im o f t h e

s u b s t an ce o f t h e b en ch co n feren ce. See Y o u n g v. S t a te

, 32 7 Ga. Ap p. 8 5 2

, 85 9 (5 ) (b )

(v ) (7 6 1 SE2 d 8 0 1) (2 0 1 4 ) (d efen d an t co u l d n o t s ucceed o n h i s c l a i m t h at h i s t ri al

co u ns el was i n effe c t i v e i n fai li n g t o o b ject t o h is ab s en ce fro m b en ch co n feren ces

,

wh ere t h e d efen d an t co u l d n o t s h o w an y p reju di ce res u l t in g fro m

h i s ab sen ce).

21(d ) Las t ly

, Ram irez co n t en d s t h at h is t ri al co u n s e l ’s a l l eg ed d efi ci en ci es

, i f

co n si d ered cu m

u l at i v el y

, d em o n s t rat e t h at h i s rep res en t at i o n wa s s o d efi ci en t as to

co n st i t u t e i neffect i v e as s is t an ce o f co u n s el an d req ui re a n ew t ri al

. R a m irez, h o wev er,

h as fai l ed t o sh o w th at h i s t ri al co u n s el p erfo rm ed d efi ci en t l y i n an y res pect

. In an y

ev en t, ev en i f we were t o as s u m e fo r t h e s ak e o f arg u m en t t h at t ri a l c o u n s e l w a s

d efi ci en t i n s o m e res p ect s

, “ t h ere i s no reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at

, b u t f o r t h o s e

d efi ci en ci es

, t he o u t co m e o f [Ram i rez’ s ] t ri al wo u l d h av e b een d i fferen t.” (Ci t at i o n

an d p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed .) Gi ps o n v. S t a t e

, 3 3 2 Ga. A p p

. 3 0 9

, 3 24 (8 ) (j) (7 7 2 SE2 d

4 0 2 ) (2 0 1 5 ).

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . McMi l l i a n a n d

Rees e, JJ., co n cu r

.

22