Court Opinion

ID: 9617183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:53:03.580527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:43.683832
License: Public Domain

HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice,
concurring.
While I concur fully in the judgment, I write in regard to Division 2 (a) (addressing Wells’s claim that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to locate or call certain witnesses) to reiterate the necessity that a defendant comply with this Court’s holding in Dickens v. State, 280 Ga. 320 (2) (627 SE2d 587) (2006), i.e., adduce either the direct testimony of the missing witness or a legally acceptable substitute for that testimony, to support the required showing of prejudice in this type of ineffectiveness claim.