Court Opinion

ID: 9855313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:22:40.273069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:38.490349
License: Public Domain

Pope, Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion in Division 1 that waiver does not preclude our consideration of the issue of whether similar transaction evidence was properly admitted at trial by failing properly to object in the trial court and, consequently, with Division 2 of the majority opinion which holds that defendant is entitled to a new trial because of the erroneous admission *535of this evidence. However, I do believe the evidence was inadmissible for the reasons stated in the majority opinion; that defense counsel’s failure to assert these arguments in the trial court was deficient; and that counsel’s deficient performance of the defendant prejudiced the defense so as to result in ineffective representation at trial. Accord Bryant v. State, 204 Ga. App. 856 (3) (420 SE2d 801) (1992); cf. Gilbert v. State, 208 Ga. App. 258 (4) (e) (430 SE2d 391) (1993) (in which the court rejected defendant’s contention that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prior crimes evidence because the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming). Thus, defendant is not only entitled to re-sentencing, as the majority properly concludes in Division 3, he is also entitled to a new trial, but, in my opinion, for the reason that previous counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.
Decided October 13, 1993.
Daniel B. Kane, for appellant.
Stephen F. Lanier, District Attorney, C. Stephen Cox, Lisa W. Pettit, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Judge Andrews joins in this special concurrence.