THI RD DI VI SI ON DOYLE, P. J.

, HODGES and W

A TKI NS, 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 ll y 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

June 24, 2024



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

A 24A 0 484. COOPER v

. TH E STA TE.

W A T K I N S , J u d ge.

Trav o n Co o p er a p p e a l s fr o m a n o r d e r d e n y ing his a mend ed mo tio n f o r new trial

af ter a j u r y f o u nd him gu ilty o f po ssessio n o f a f irearm by a f

irst o f f end er p ro b atio ner. 1

Co o p er argu es that the trial c o u rt abu sed its d isc r etio n in d enying his m o t i o n f o r a

mistrial and that he w as denied ef f ec tiv e assistanc e o f c o u nsel at trial. Fo r t he reaso ns

set f o rth belo w , w e af

f irm.

V iew ed in the light mo st f av o rable to the verd ic t, 2 the e v id enc e sho w s that

aro u nd 5: 00 a. m. o n the mo rning o f Oc t o b e r 1 2
, 201 9
, Co op er d ro ve t o a W af f le

1 See OCGA § 1 6

- 1 1

- 1 31 (b).

2 See Ra n ki

n v

. S ta te , 27 8 Ga. 7 0 4, 7 05 (6 06 SE2d 26 9 ) (2004).H o u se in Ro c k d ale Co unty and p ark ed in a lo t o n the “bac k sid e” of the restau rant at

an a d j ac ent bu siness a n d n o t w here W af f le H o u se c usto mers no rmally p ark ed

. Fo r

ap p ro ximately a n ho u r, Co op er w alk ed aro u nd t he bu ild ing mu ltip le times, entered

and exited the r estau rant rep eated ly, and went in and ou t o f the restro o m, a ll w itho u t

o rd ering anything.

Co o p er w as w earing tight p ants o r “ sk inny” j eans, a n d W af f le H o u se

emp lo yees c o u ld see the o u tline o f w hat ap peared t o be a gu n in his f ro nt p o c k et and

the tip of the gu n stic k ing ou t o f the p o c k et. A n e mp lo yee c alled 9 1 1
, and l a w

enf o rc ement o f

f ic ers arriv ed sho rtly thereaf ter while Co o p er w a s in the restro o m.

W hen Co o p er c ame o u t o f the restro o m, o f f i c e r s c o u ld see a “ bu lge” in his right

p o c k et. Up o n seeing t he o f f ic ers, Co o per immed iately o rd ered “ three bu rgers” at the

c o u nter and w ent bac k into the restro o m

.

One o f the of

fic ers k no c k ed o n the restro o m d o or, a nno u nc ed the p o lic e

p resenc e, and ask ed Co o p er to c o me o u t. The o f f ic ers heard a to ilet f

lu sh, and af

ter

a f ew mo ments Co o p er c ame o u t. T he b u lge w as no lo nger v isible in Co o p er’ s p o c k et,

bu t the o ff

ic ers f o u nd a f irearm in the restro o m trash c an. A c c ord ing to W af fle H o u se

emp lo yees, the trash c an in the single- s tall, w ind o w less restro o m had been rec ently

2emp tied in a ntic ip atio n o f the 7: 00 a. m. shif t c hange. The serial nu mber on the f irearm

had been o b sc u red w ith white p aint o r W ite- Ou t, bu t the of f ic ers u ltimately

d etermined that the f

irearm had been rep o rted sto len.

Co o p er w as charged w ith thef t by rec eiv ing sto len pro p ert y , 3 ta m p ering w ith

ev id enc e, 4 a n d p o ssessio n o f a f irearm by a f

irst of f end er p r o b atio ner. A t the

c o nc lu sio n o f the first part o f t he bif u rc ated trial, the j u ry f

o u nd Co o p er no t gu ilty o f

the f irst tw o c harges. Fo ll o w ing the read ing o f t he firearm c harge and o p ening

statements, the S t a te tend ered a c e rtif ied c o p y o f Co o p e r’ s prio r ad j u d ic atio n. The

j u ry f o u nd him gu ilty o n the f

irearm c harge, and the trial c o u rt later d e nied Co o p er’ s

amend ed mo tio n f

o r new trial. This ap p eal f ollo w ed

.

1

. Co o p er argu es that the trial c o u rt abu sed its d isc retio n w he n i t d e n i ed his

mo tio n f or a mistrial af

ter the State imp ro p erly p lac ed his c harac t er into ev id enc e by

su ggesting that he w as engaging in a ro b bery at the W af fle H o u se. 5

3 See OCGA § 1 6 -8- 7 (a).

4 See OCGA § 1 6

- 1 0- 9 4 (a).

5 Co o p er a rgu es that the State d id s o “ in d isregard of a mo tio n in limine. ” The

trial c o u r t, ho w ev er, d id no t grant Co o p er’ s m o t io n in limine o n this gro und

. I nstead

, the trial c o u r t f

o u nd that emp lo yees c o u ld “testif y t hey tho u ght [Co o p er] w as go ing

to co mmit a ro bbery

. . . if that [w as] w hy they c alled the po lic e[. ]” The c o u rt ad d ed

3“ T he ref u sal to grant a mistrial based o n a p rej u d ic ial co mment lies within the

d isc r etio n o f the trial c o u rt, and w e w ill no t interf e re w ith that disc r etio n o n ap p eal in

the absenc e o f

manif e st abu se. ” 6

D u ring cro ss- examinatio n, trial c o u nsel qu estio ned o ne o f the resp o nd ing

o f f ic ers a bo u t his i n v e stigatio n and w hy the o ff ic e r had no t c o nf

irmed w hether Co o p er

w as on a telep ho ne c all f

or a s ignif ic ant amo u nt o f time w hile he w as in Waf f le H o u se.

A f ter the o f f ic er r e sp o nd ed t hat it w as no t relev ant to the sto len f irearm, trial c o u nsel

c o ntinu ed the line o f qu estio ning, ask ing s ev e ral times w hether Co o p er b eing o n a 35-

minu te p ho ne c all w o u ld hav e exp lained Co o per’ s “ p ac ing aro u nd

. ” On red irec t, the

State inqu ired whether, “at t he c o nc lu sio n o f this inv estigatio n [Co o p er w a s] c harged

w ith ro bbery[,]” and the o f fic er resp o nd ed , “ N o

. ”

Co u nsel o bj ec ted , and the c o u rt instru c ted the j u ry to d isregard entirely “ the

mentio n o f w hether [Co o p er] w as charged w ith ro bbery[. ] That is no t relev ant in this

that it w o u ld b e “ mo re than hap p y to giv e a limiting instru ctio n” d ep end ing o n ho w the te s t imo ny c a me o ut, bu t no ted that “ the D istric t A tto rney w ou ld be w ise to

c o u nsel these w itnesses to try and av o id this issu e alto gether, if p o ssible. ”

6 (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Bo d y v

. S ta te , 36 7 Ga. A p p

. 506
, 51 1 (3) (887 SE2d 356 ) (2023) ( “ Trial c o u rts are v ested with great d isc retio n to grant o r d e ny

m i s tr ials bec au se they a re in t he best po ssible p o sitio n to d etermine whethe r o n e i s

w arranted

. ” ) (c itatio n and p unc tu atio n o mitted )

.

4c ase and sho u ld no t hav e been bro u ght u p

. ” The Stat e f o llo w ed u p w ith, “ So yo u

w ere o nly inv estigating the f irearm c harge?” The o f

f ic e r r esp o nd ed

, “ W e — I d o n’ t

k no w if I c an say it. W e w e re inv estigating, bu t f ro m my exp e rienc e, it c o u ld hav e been

a bigger c rime. ”

The d ef ense again o bj ec ted

, and the t rial c o u rt ad mo nished the State f o r go ing

“ r ight bac k into ” w h a t t h e c o u rt had “ j u st to ld them” no t to

. The t rial c o urt

instru c ted the j u ry “ t o ign o r e the last qu estio n and answ er. D o no t c o nsid er that in

reac hing y o u r verd ic t in t his c ase. I am go ing to instru c t the D istric t Atto rney’ s Of f ic e

to c e a s e t h is line o f qu estio ning. ” Trial c o u nsel then requ ested to tak e u p a matter

o u tsid e of t he j u r y ’ s p resenc e. A f ter the j ury w as exc used

, the d ef ense mo v ed fo r a

mistrial. The trial c o u rt d enied the mo tio n, f ind ing that “ t he c u rativ e instru c tio ns

w ere ad equ ate. ”

I n rev iew ing a trial c o u rt’ s exerc ise o f d isc retio n in d enying a

mo tio n fo r mistrial based o n the imp ro p er a d missio n o f bad c harac ter

ev id enc e , w e c o nsid er the natu re o f the statement, the o ther ev id enc e in

the c ase, and the a c tio n tak en by t h e c o u r t and c o u nsel c o nc erning the

imp ro p riety. W e also c o nsid er ad d itio nal f a ct s lik e whether the ref

erenc e

to the imp r o p er c harac ter ev id e nc e is iso lated and b rief

, w hether the

j u ry’ s exp o su re w as rep eated o r extensiv e, and w hether the intro d u c t io n

o f the o bj ec tio nable ev i d e n c e w a s inad v ertent o r w hether it w as

5d eliberately elic ited by the state. W e w ill no t distu rb a trial c o u rt’ s

exerc ise o f d isc retio n in d enying a m o t io n f o r mistrial u nless a mistrial is

essential to p reserv e the d ef end ant’ s right to a f

air trial. 7

H ere, the ref

e renc es to w hether Co o p e r had b een c harged w ith ro bbery and the

inv e stigatio n o f w hat “ c ou ld hav e been a b igger c rime” w e r e brief and iso lated

. The

trial c o urt instru c t ed the j u ry t hat w hether Co o p er w as c harged w ith r o bbery w as no t

relev ant, to igno re the latte r q u e s t i o n and a nsw er, and no t to c o nsid e r them in

reac hing a v erd ic t. As Co o p e r h a s m a d e n o sho w ing t hat the grant o f a mistrial w as

nec essary to p reserv e his r ight to a f air trial, 8 w e c o nc lu d e that the trial co u rt p ro p erly

exerc ised its dis c r e tio n by giv ing an a pp ro p riate c u rativ e instru ctio n r a t her than

granting a mistrial. 9

7 (Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Bo dy , 36 7 Ga. A p p

. at 51 1 (3).

8 See S mi th v

. S ta t

e , 244 Ga. A pp

. 1 65, 1 6 8 (3) (534 SE2d 9 03) (2000).

9 See W i lli a ms v

. S ta t

e , 247 G a

. A p p

. 8 8
, 9 0 (2) (543 SEd 402) (2000) (Ev en

assu ming a w itness’ s remark s r e gard ing an earlier p u rc hase of c o caine f ro m the

d ef end ant and the w i t n e s s ’ s su sp ic io ns a bo ut w here the d ef end ant sto red c o c aine imp ermissibly p lac ed the d ef e nd ant’ s bad c harac ter bef o re the j u ry, “ the d e c isio n to giv e c urativ e instru c t io ns to the j u ry rather than grant the mistrial requ e st f o llo w ing

the intro d u c tio n o f b ad c harac ter ev id enc e [w as] w ithin the disc r et i o n o f the trial c o urt and [w as] no t erro r. ” ) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).

62. Co o per c o ntend s that he w as d e nied ef f ec tiv e assistanc e of c o u nsel in sev eral

resp ec t s in that his trial co u nsel f a iled t o timely stip u late to his f irst o ff end er statu s,

f ailed to requ est a j u ry instru c tio n regard ing the u s e o f his f irst o f f end er p ro batio nary

sentenc e, f

ailed t o c hallenge the c o nstitu tio nality o f OCGA § 1 6 -1 1- 131 a s ap p lied

, and

f ailed to inv estigate and p rep are f o r trial.

To p rev ail o n a c l a i m o f i n e f f ec tiv e a s sistanc e o f c o u nsel, “ a def end a nt mu st

establish, p u rsu ant to S tri ckla n d v

. W

a s hi n gto n ,[ 1 0 ] that c o u nsel’ s p e rf o rmanc e w as

d ef ic ient and that the d ef

ic ient p erf

o rmanc e w as p rej u d ic ial to his d ef e nse. ” 1 1

To sho w d ef

ic ient p erf

o rmanc e, the d e f

end ant mu st d emo nstrate

that c o u nsel perf

o rmed c o u nsel’ s d u ties in an o bj ec tiv ely u nreaso nable

w a y , c o nsid ering all o f the circ u m stanc es and in t he light o f p r ev a il i n g

p ro f essio nal no rms. To establish p rej ud ic e, [the d ef end ant] mu st sho w

t h a t t h er e is a reaso nable pro bability that, bu t f or c ou nsel’ s

u n p r o f essio nal erro r, the resu lt of the pro c eed ing w ou ld hav e been

d if f erent. 1 2

1 0 46 6 U. S. 6 6 8 (1 04 SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 6 7 4) (1 9 84).

1 1 (Citatio n a nd p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) C o ney v

. S ta te , 29 0 Ga. A p p

. 36 4, 37 0 (3) (6 59 SE2d 7 6 8) (2008).

1 2 (Citatio ns and pu nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Pa yn e v

. S ta te , 31 4 Ga. 322, 328- 329 (3) (87 7 SE2d 202) (2022).

7“ In rev iew ing a trial c o u rt’ s d eterminatio n regard ing a c laim of inef f ec tiv e assistanc e

o f c o u nsel, this c o urt u p ho ld s the trial c o urt’ s f a c tu al f ind ings u nless they are c learly

erro neo u s; w e rev iew a trial c o u rt’ s legal c o nc lu sio ns d e no vo

. ” 1 3

(a) Co o p er argu es that trial c o u nsel w as inef f ec tiv e in f ailing to stip u late to his

f i r s t o f f end er statu s and that, as a resu lt, the j u ry saw that the p rio r c harge w as

ro bbery. Co o per c o n t en d s that the natu re o f t he p rio r c harge w a s p artic u larly

p rej u dic ial bec au se o f te s t i m o n y su ggesting that he w as p lanning to ro b the W af f le

H o u se.

“ A d ef end a nt may b e p r e j u d ic ed by the ad missio n o f a p rio r c o nv ic tio n into

ev id enc e w hen the prio r c onv ic tio n is o f the natu re lik ely to inf lame t h e j u r y’ s

p assio ns and r a ise the r isk o f a c o nv ic tio n based o n imp ro p er c o nsid eratio ns. ” 1 4 The

Su p reme Co urt o f G e o r g i a has held

, ho w ev er, t hat “ev en v io lent crimes, c rimes

1 3 (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) C o n ey , 29 0 Ga. A p p

. at 37 0 (3).

1 4 (Citatio n and p u nc tu a tio n o mitted

. ) Ja cks o n v

. S t a te , 31 7 Ga. 9 5, 1 03- 1 04 (2) (b) (89 1 SE2d 86 6 ) ( 2023) (ho ld ing t h a t , “ ev en if [the d ef end ant’ s ] c o u nsel w as d ef ic ient f o r f ailing to stip u late to his c o n v i c ted

- f elo n s tatu s, [ the d ef

end ant] ha[d ]

f ailed to sho w that there [ w as] a reaso nable p ro bability that t he r esu lt o f his trial w o u ld

hav e b een d if

f erent” w here the p ro sec u to r did no t emp hasiz e t h e n a t u re o f the

aggrav ated assau lt c o nv ic tio n and w here the ev i d enc e against the d ef end ant w as

stro ng).

8inv olv ing f

irearms, and d ru g o f

f enses w ere no t lik ely to inf lame the j u ry’ s p assio ns in

mu rd er cases. [Thu s,] the absenc e o f a stip u latio n d o es no t alw a ys h a v e p r e j u d ic ial

imp ac t. ” 1 5

H ere, the prio r ro bbery o f f ense w as id e ntif

ied w hen t he p ro sec u to r intro d u c ed

,

and pu blished witho u t o bj ec tio n, a c ertif ied c o p y o f the p rio r ad j u d ic a tio n, and d u ring

c lo sing argu ments w hen the p ro sec u to r said “ as yo u see in the c harge[,] the d ef end ant

w as p rev io u sly c harged and c o n v i c t ed in 201 4 o f ro bbery by f o r ce. ” B ec au se the

mentio ns o f t he p rio r f

elo ny were minimal and a p p ro p riate f o r p r o o f o f the c harged

c rime, 1 6 Co o p er has failed t o sho w that t here w as a r e aso nable p ro bability that the

o u tc o me o f the tri a l w ou ld hav e been d if f erent if trial co u nsel had stip u lated to

Co o p er’ s f

e l o n y s t a t u s. 1 7 H av ing d etermined that Co o p e r has f ailed to sho w p rej u d ic e,

1 5 (Citatio n a nd p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Pri ckett v

. Sta te , 31 4 Ga. 435, 439 (1 ) (87 7
SE2d 57 3) (2022).

1 6 See C ha v ez v

. S ta te , 307 Ga. 804, 81 0 (2) (a) ( 837 SE2d 7 6 6 ) (2020) (ho ld ing

there w as no p rej u d ic e f ro m c o u nsel’ s f

ailu re to stip u late to first o f f e nd er statu s, altho u gh the State ref

erenc ed the p rio r d isp o sitio n in its clo s ing argu ment, w here the

p rio r o f f ense w as no n- vio lent and the ev id enc e against the d ef end ant w as stro ng).

1 7 S e e B e n t

l e y v

. S ta te , 307 Ga. 1
, 1 0 (2) ( b) (834 SE2d 549 ) (201 9 ) (“ [T] h e ad missio n o f the exhibit ref erenc ing [the d ef

end ant’ s] rap e and inc est c o nv ic tio ns had

no p ro bable ef

f e c t o n the o u tc o me o f the t rial, and he theref ore c anno t p r ev a il o n this

c laim o f inef

f e c tiv e assistanc e. ” ).

9w e need no t examine the d ef ic ie n t p e r f

ormanc e p ro ng of his claim o f inef f ec tiv e

assistanc e o f

c o u nsel. 1 8

(b) I n a related argu m ent, Co o p e r c ontend s t hat c o u nsel was inef fec tiv e in

f ailing to requ est an instr u c t i o n that t he ju ry sho u ld no t u se his f irst o f f end er

p ro batio nary sentenc e to p ro v e his c harac ter to c o mmit the c harged c rime.

D u ring its d eliber at i o ns o n the f irearm p o ssessio n c harge, the j ury a sk ed the

trial j u d ge w hether it w as t o c o n s i d e r the f irst c o nv ic tio n f

ro m 201 4. Trial c o u nsel

requ ested that the c o urt instru c t the j u ry that the p rio r c o nv ic tio n c o uld o nly be u sed

f o r the limited p urp o se o f p ro v ing that Co o p er w as a f irst of f end er p ro batio ner and no t

w hether Co o p er had c o mmitted ano ther o f fense. The trial c o u rt granted the requ est

and r e c h a r g e d t he j u r y that the “ prio r c o nv ic t io n may be u sed o nly f o r the limited

p u rp o se o f

p ro v ing that [Co o p er] is a [f ]irst [o ]f f end er p ro batio ner. ”

Co o p er has no t p resented anything to o v erc ome the p resu mp tio n that the j u ry

f o llo w ed the t rial c o u rt’ s instru c tio ns, 1 9 w hic h m i rro red the t ailo red p attern j u ry

1 8 See Pa yn e , 31 4 Ga. at at 328 (3).

1 9 See W i lli a ms v

. S ta te , 31 3 Ga. 443, 450 (1 ) (87 0 SE2d 39 7) (2022).

10instru c tio n. 2 0 A c c o r d ingly, w e co nc lu d e that “ the ev id enc e o f [Co o p er’ s] prio r firsto f f end e r ad j u d ic atio n — e sp ec ially w hen co ntrasted w ith the stro ng ev id enc e o f his

g u i l t i n t his c ase — w as o nly a mino r c o nsid eratio n a t the trial and had no p r o b ab l e

ef f ec t o n the o u tc o me o f

his trial. ” 2 1

(c ) C o op er argu es that he w as no t inf o rmed that he w a s f

o rf eiting his Sec o nd

A mend ment right to p o ssess a f irearm w hen he w as sentenc e d a s a f irst o f f end er

p ro b atio ner bec au se the p ro hibitio n in his sentenc e o nly ap p lied to so meo ne

“ co nv ic ted ” and bec au se there w as no exp ress w a iv e r (as w ith a Fo u rth A mend ment

2 0 See Su ggested Pattern J u r y I n s t r u c tio ns, V o l. I I : Criminal Cases (2007 ), §

1

. 34. 00 (“ So metimes e v id enc e is ad mitted (f or a limited p u r p o s e) o r (against so me

p arties and no t o thers) o r (f o r so me c o u n ts a nd no t o t hers). Su c h ev id enc e may be

c o nsid ered by t he j ury (f

o r the so le issu e o r p urp o s e) (against that/tho se p arty(ies)) (o nly fo r the c o u nts) f

or w hic h the ev id enc e is limited and no t f o r any o ther

p u rp o se. ” ).

2 1 (Citatio n and p unc t u atio n o m itted

. ) C o lli ns v

. S ta t e , 31 2 G a. 7 27
, 7 49 (8) (c ) (86 4 SE2d 85) (2021 )

.

11w aiv e r). 2 2 Thu s , he c o ntend s t hat OCGA § 1 6- 1 1

- 1 31 w as u nc o nstitu t io nal as ap p lied

to him, and c o unsel w as inef f ec tiv e f o r f ailing to raise this argu m ent.

The c e rtif

ied c o py of Co o p er’ s p rio r ad j u d ic a tio n ind ic ates that he p led gu ilty

to ro bbery 2 3 in 201 4, and w as sentenc ed as a f irst o f f end er p ro b atio ner u nd er OCGA

§ 42- 8- 60. 2 4 A p ro visio n titled “ FI REA RM S” stated : “ I f y o u are c o nv ic ted of a c rime

p u nishable by imp riso nment f o r a term exc eed ing one year,

. . . it is u nlaw f ul f o r yo u

to p o s sess o r p u rc hase a firearm inc lu d ing a rif le, p isto l, o r r ev olv er, o r

ammu nitio n[. ]”

2 2 See generally Ma rti

n v

. S ta te , 37 0 G a. A p p

. 27 5, 27 6- 27 7 (2) (89 6 SE2d 87 4) (2024) (“ A p ro batio ner w ho has exec u t e d a Fo u rth A mend me n t w aiv er may be

su bj ec t to a w arrantless s earc h if there is reaso nable s u sp ic io n o f criminal ac tiv ity, o r f o r the p u rp o se o f mo nito ring t he extent o f the p ro batio ner’ s c o mp lianc e (o r lac k o f

c o mp lianc e) w ith the terms o f [his] p ro batio n. ” ) (c itatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).

2 3 See OCGA § 1 6

- 8- 40 (a).

2 4 See OCGA § 42- 8- 60 (a) (allo w ing f irst o f f end ers to e nter a p lea o f gu ilty and

to be plac ed o n p ro batio n o r inc arc erated w ith o u t a n ad j ud ic atio n o f gu ilt); 42- 8- 6 0 (e) (1 ) ( I f t h e p r o batio n o r inc arc eratio n t e r m is c o mp leted w itho u t v io latio n, the

d ef end ant is d isc harged w itho u t an ad j u dic atio n o f gu ilt and is no t c o nsid ered to hav e

a c riminal c o nv ic tio n. ).

12A ltho u gh “the entry o f a gu i l t y p lea u nd er OCGA § 42- 8- 6 0 is no t a

‘ co nv ic tio n’ w ithin the u su al d ef initio n of that term [

, ] ” 2 5 O C GA § 1 6

- 1 1

- 1 31 (b)

exp ressly p ro hibits po ssessio n o f a f irearm b y “ [a]ny p erso n w ho is on p ro batio n as a

f elo ny f irst o f f end er p u rsu ant to A r tic le 3 o f Chap ter 8 o f

Title 42[. ]”

To t he extent Co o p e r is argu ing that a f i r st o f f e nd er p ro batio ner mu st be

exp lic itly ad v ised that he is w aiv ing his Sec ond A mend ment r ights, he h a s c i t e d no

au tho rity in su pp o rt o f t his argu ment. 2 6 B ec au se “ [a] law yer is no t d ef ic ient f o r f ailing

to mak e a n argu ment t hat wo u ld r e q u ire an extensio n o f the law [,]” 2 7 Co o p er has

2 5 Pri es t v

. S ta te , 26 1 G a. 6 51
, 6 51

- 6 5 2 (2) ( 409 SE2d 6 5 7 ) (1 9 9 1 ); see OCGA §

42- 8- 60 ( e) (1 ); see also O CGA § 1 6

- 1

- 3 (4) ( d e f ining “ c o nv ic t io n” as “ a f inal j u d gment o f c o nv ic t io n entered u p o n a v erd ic t o r find ing o f gu ilty o f a c rime o r u p o n

a p lea o f gu ilty” ).

2 6 A ltho u gh Co o p er r elies o n a r e c e n t d ec isio n o f the Su p reme Co u rt o f the

United States to argu e t hat there is a general r ight to p u b lic c arry, that c ase exp lic itly

limits its ho ld ing to ” law

- abid ing c itiz ens. ” N

. Y. S ta te Ri

fle & Pi s t o l As s n

. v

. B ru en , 59 7 U. S. 1
, 8- 10 (1 42 SCt 21 1 1
, 21 3 LE2d 387 ) (2022); see also id

. at 39 ( II I ) (A ) (“ I t is u nd isp u ted that petitio ners

. . . — tw o o rd inary, law

- abid ing, ad u lt c itiz e ns — are

p art o f “ the peo p le” w ho m the Sec o nd A mend ment p ro t e cts. ”); id

. a t 9 1 ( I ) (c o nc u r r i ng o p inio n) (“ [A ] State may no t enf o rc e a law

, lik e N ew Yo rk ’ s Su lliv an Law

, that ef

f e c tiv ely p rev ents its law

- abid ing resid ents fro m c arrying a gu n [to d ef end

themselv es]. That is all w e d ec id e

. Ou r ho ld ing d ec id es no thing abo u t w ho may law f u lly p o ssess a f

irearm o r the requ irements that mu st be met to bu y a gu n. ” ).

2 7 Pa yn e , 31 4 Ga. at 331 (3) (d ).

13f

ailed to establish def

ic ient p e r f

o r m a n c e. A c c o r d ingly, w e need no t e xamine the

p rej u dic e p ro ng o f his c laim o f inef f ec tiv e assistanc e o f

c o u nsel. 2 8

(d ) I n his f

inal c laim o f inef

f ec tiv e assistanc e o f c o u nsel, Co op er argu es that his

atto r ney failed to inv estigate a nd p rep are, sp e c if ic ally f ailing to rev iew the c e r t i f i e d

c o p y o f the p rio r c o nv ic tio n. Co o p er c o ntend s that, had c ou nsel d o ne so , she w o u ld

hav e f o u nd that the c onv ic tio n lac ked any no t ic e to Co o p er that he c o u ld no t p o ssess

a f irearm.

Trial c o u nsel testif

ied at the mo tio n fo r new trial hearing that s he p rep ared f o r

trial by, inter alia, rev iew ing a ll the ev id enc e and p ro vid ing all d isc o v ery to Co o p er

bef o re trial. She t estif

ied f u rther that neither Co o p er no r his mo ther 2 9 had t o ld c o u nsel

that Co o p er d id no t k no w he c o u ld no t hav e a f irearm. Co o p er f

a i l ed t o p r esent

ev id enc e at his mo tio n f

o r new trial hearing t hat he d id no t rec eiv e no tic e that he c o u ld

no t p o ssess a f

irearm w hile o n p ro batio n. “ U n f ou nd ed sp ec u latio n abo u t w hat

ad d itio nal inv estigatio n might hav e u nc o v e red o r abo u t what u nnamed w itnesses may

2 8 See id

. at 328 (3).

2 9 Co u nsel testif

ied that she w as limited in m eeting w ith Co o p e r p rio r to trial

d u e to COV I D -1 9 restric tio ns in p lac e at the j ail. H o w ev er, s he d id no t believ e that the

restric tio ns had any ef

fec t o n her ability to rep resent Co o per at trial.

14hav e testif

ied to c anno t su p p o rt a c laim that trial c o unsel w as p ro f essio nally d ef

ic ient,

no r can it establish p rej u d ic e. ” 3 0 Co o p er has thu s f ailed to d emo nstrate that he w as

d enied ef f ec t iv e assistanc e o f

c o u nsel.

Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed. D o yle, P. J.

, an d Ho dges

, J.

, co n cu r

.

3 0 (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Pa yn e , 31 4 Ga. at 334 (3) (g).

15