Court Opinion

ID: 9585855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:04:29.182547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:15.709485
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur fully in Divisions 1 and 2 but respectfully dissent with respect to Division 3. A remand is not called for.
The majority opinion states that “it is this [current] counsel who now raises the issue of the effectiveness of appellant’s trial counsel.” In reality, counsel does not raise the issue but very carefully framed the enumeration: “Appellant urges ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” (Emphasis supplied.) This contrasts markedly from the wording of the two other enumerations, and distinction is explained.
Counsel states in the brief that he thoroughly reviewed the case *557and “is of the opinion that ineffective assistance of trial counsel is not a viable ground for appeal in this case.” He explains that appellant himself wants the issue raised despite counsel’s professional judgment, so he agreed to and did submit appellant’s own notes and written arguments as an incorporated attachment to the brief.
The Constitution of the State provides that: “No person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend, either in person or by an attorney, that person’s own cause'in any of the courts of this state.” Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XII. Where appellant has an attorney on appeal, he cannot also represent himself. See Lewis v. State, 186 Ga. App. 92 (366 SE2d 305) (1988). Where the appellant’s representative states that there is no basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, no issue is made for this Court to resolve.
Even if we were to recognize that such an issue was raised on appeal, remand is inappropriate. Trial counsel withdrew with the court’s permission on January 26, 1988, effective January 25. Since the motion for new trial was heard and denied on February 1, pursuant to a rule nisi for that date, defendant must have been represented at that hearing by new counsel. Such counsel did not seek to amend the motion by adding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, although the opportunity was presented. That was the “earliest practicable moment” it could have been raised, in the lodestar words of Smith v. State, 255 Ga. 654, 656 (341 SE2d 5) (1986).
Finally, what appellant himself complains about requires no hearing. The nature of his dissatisfaction relates mostly to trial tactics and strategy, which are not a basis for such a claim. Jones v. State, 243 Ga. 820, 830 (12) (256 SE2d 907) (1979). He also asserts that his counsel conspired through camaraderie with the prosecuting attorney to convict him, but the record shows that he was granted a fair trial. He faults the closing argument as siding with the State, but it is not recorded.
Even when an issue of effective assistance is properly raised, a' hearing is not always necessary. Dawson v. State, 258 Ga. 380 (369 SE2d 897) (1988). If the trial court were to consider appellant’s pro se complaints in this case, it would have to conclude as a matter of law that appellant states no basis upon which a new trial would be required because of ineffective assistance of counsel at the first one.
The judgment should be affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen joins in this opinion.