Court Opinion

ID: 9394701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 13:03:24.231743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:02.444842
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
 Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
 opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
 prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
 official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

                                                  Decided: May 16, 2023

                      S23A0259. BLALOCK v. THE STATE.

       LAGRUA, Justice.

      Appellant Dwight Blalock, Jr., was convicted of malice murder

and other crimes in connection with the fatal shooting of Carlos

Wright and the aggravated assault of Bryan Morrow on November

13, 2014. 1        On appeal, Blalock contends that (1) the trial court

      1 On March 3, 2017, Blalock was indicted by a Cobb County grand jury
on charges of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of
aggravated assault, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony. On May 26, 2017, the State filed a superseding
indictment, adding one count of violation of the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism
and Prevention Act and one count of felony murder predicated on violation of
the Criminal Street Gang Act. In June 2017, a jury found Blalock guilty of all
counts. The trial court sentenced Blalock to serve life in prison without the
possibility of parole for the malice murder count, plus 35 years to run
concurrently for one of the aggravated assault counts and the gang count, plus
an additional 10 years consecutive for the firearms counts. The felony murder
counts were vacated by operation of law, and one of the aggravated assault
counts merged with the malice murder count for sentencing purposes. On July
10, 2017, Blalock filed a motion for new trial, which he amended through new
counsel on June 24, 2020. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court
denied Blalock’s motion for new trial on May 18, 2022. Blalock filed a timely
notice of appeal to this Court, and the case was docketed to the term of this
abused its discretion and denied Blalock due process by refusing to

grant his motion for continuance; (2) Blalock’s trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance by failing to argue that the discovery statute,

OCGA § 17-16-4, was unconstitutional as applied in this case; and

(3) the trial court erred in permitting a State’s witness to comment

on Blalock’s silence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Blalock’s

convictions.

      The evidence presented at Blalock’s trial2 showed that, on the

evening of November 13, 2014, Wright and Morrow were interested

in purchasing cocaine, so Wright contacted his neighbor, Savante

Hubbard, who had set up a cocaine purchase for Wright a few weeks

earlier. On that occasion, Hubbard had arranged for Wright to buy

cocaine from Blalock, and then, Hubbard, Wright, and Muriel

Johnson—Wright’s girlfriend—drove to a nearby apartment

Court beginning in December 2022 and submitted for a decision on the briefs.
       2 “In light of the harmless-error analysis we undertake in Division [3] of

this opinion, we review the record de novo, and we weigh the evidence as we
would expect reasonable jurors to have done [] as opposed to viewing it all in
the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.” Moore v. State, 315 Ga. 263, 264
(1) n.2 (882 SE2d 227) (2022) (quotation and punctuation omitted).

                                       2
complex to complete the sale with Blalock. 3 According to Hubbard,

a few days after that transaction, Blalock called him and said that

one of the five dollar bills Wright had given him during the sale was

“counterfeit.” Blalock told Hubbard, “I thought we were cooler than

that to let somebody get down on me for $5.00.” Hubbard replaced

the five dollar bill, feeling “obligated” to do so because he “brought

[Wright] over there” and still had “intentions of dealing with

[Blalock].”

     On the night of November 13, Wright called Hubbard and

asked if Hubbard could set up a cocaine purchase for him again.

Hubbard was not available to go with Wright that night, and he was

“cautious” about reconnecting Wright and Blalock because he did

not want Wright to “try the same thing and try to give [Blalock] fake

money again.” But Hubbard agreed to put Wright in touch with

Blalock. At that time, Blalock did not have a working cell phone, so

     3   Following Blalock’s arrest in this case, Johnson was shown a
photographic lineup and asked if she could identify the man Wright purchased
cocaine from in October 2014. Johnson selected Blalock’s picture from the
lineup, and Johnson identified Blalock again at trial.
                                     3
Hubbard called Jeremy Dyer—a friend of Blalock’s who often let

Blalock use his phone—and spoke to Blalock about setting up

another deal with Wright. According to Hubbard, Blalock agreed to

sell to Wright and did not “say anything” about “the $5.00 bill

incident.” However, Hubbard was “concerned about putting them

together” because he “knew what kind of guy” Blalock was and “had

these concerns” about what Blalock might do.

     At trial, Johnson testified that she overheard Wright speaking

to Blalock on the phone that evening, arranging a meeting time for

later that night.      Around 10:00 p.m., Wright and Morrow left

Wright’s apartment to meet Blalock. Wright drove Morrow’s car—a

2013 brown Honda Civic—because he was more familiar with the

Bellemeade area. According to Morrow, he and Wright drove to a

duplex located at 816-B Bellemeade Way and parked in the adjacent

cul-de-sac. 4 Wright then called his contact—Morrow did not actually

     4  Dyer and Dyer’s girlfriend, Latoya Ross, lived at 816-B Bellemeade
Way with their children, and Dyer testified that Blalock frequently hung out
there. Neighbors described 816-B as a “dope house” and a “drug hangout” that
was “filled with people running drugs.”
                                     4
know the identity of the person at that time—to say that “he was

outside.” Morrow testified that, seconds later, someone wearing a

red hoodie approached the back side of the vehicle and started

shooting, walking around the front of the car towards the driver’s

side. The shooter “shot up the glass” on the driver’s side, and Wright

and Morrow “both got down.” Morrow got out of the car and ran

towards the duplex and through the adjacent woods, hearing shots

as he ran away.

     Officers with the Marietta Police Department responded to the

scene between 10:45 and 11:00 p.m. on November 13 and observed

a man—later identified as Wright—lying face-down in the cul-de-

sac just outside the driver’s side door of a brown Honda Civic.

Officers rolled Wright’s body over, cut his shirt off, and discovered

“two entrance wounds” in his torso. The medical examiner testified

at trial that Wright died at the scene from “a gunshot wound to the

torso with perforations of the lungs, heart, and liver.”

     Detective Lee Greene was called to process the scene.         He

located two 7.62-millimeter shell casings on the driver’s side of the

                                  5
vehicle and two .380-caliber shell casings on the passenger side of

the vehicle, which he testified would have been fired from a 7-

millimeter handgun and .380-caliber handgun, respectively.

Detective Greene also observed bullet holes in both sides of the

vehicle. On this basis, Detective Greene determined that there were

two shooters involved in the shooting—one shooter who was using a

7-millimeter handgun and another who was using a .380-caliber

handgun. No weapons were recovered at the scene or inside the

vehicle, and neither weapon was ever found. Morrow testified that

neither Wright nor Morrow was carrying a weapon that night, and

at trial, Morrow identified Blalock as one of the shooters.

     One of the detectives who canvassed the crime scene area after

the shooting observed “fresh” saliva—where someone apparently

spit on the ground—near the walkway leading to 816-B Bellemeade

Way. The detective collected a sample of the saliva, and subsequent

GBI testing determined it to be a match for Blalock’s DNA.

     Detective Michael Selleck, who also responded to the scene

that night, testified that a man approached him while he was

                                  6
standing near the shooting location and motioned for him to walk

over to “a darker back corner of the cul-de-sac.” The man identified

himself as Lee Hill and told Detective Selleck that “Blalock, that is

your guy,” and “if anybody hears me saying this, you will find me in

a ditch.” At trial, Hill testified that he heard about the shooting on

the night of November 13, and shortly afterwards, Blalock came to

his house and told him, “I did it.” Hill admitted that he went up to

the crime scene area afterwards and spoke to a detective, and while

he could not recall saying “Blalock” is “your guy,” he did tell “the

truth” when he said, “If anyone hears me telling you this, you will

find me in a ditch.” Hill also testified that he had seen Blalock

wearing a red hoodie earlier in the day.

     Dyer also testified at trial. According to Dyer, around 9:00 or

9:30 p.m. on November 13, Blalock was hanging out with Dyer and

some other friends at Dyer’s house, and Dyer let Blalock use his

phone, which he did “fairly often.” At some point, Blalock told Dyer

that “he was going to go outside to catch a Joe,” which Dyer testified

meant to “sell drugs” to someone. About 10 or 15 minutes later, Dyer

                                  7
heard gunshots. Dyer stepped outside after the shooting stopped

and saw Wright lying in the cul-de-sac. At trial, Dyer testified that

he did not see Blalock with a gun that night, but he knew Blalock

owned and carried a 7-millimeter handgun—a gun Dyer had “never

heard of” until he saw Blalock with one.

     Detective Michael Merritt, the lead investigator in this case,

testified that, on November 14, he interviewed several of the

witnesses who were in the area that night, including Morrow, Hill,

and Dyer. Based on those interviews, Detective Merritt identified

Blalock as a possible suspect in the shooting. On November 15,

officers located Blalock at an apartment in Cobb County with

O’Reicha Usher, his girlfriend, and Gerald Florence, his cousin.

Florence and Blalock were detained and taken to police

headquarters for questioning. During Blalock’s interview, Blalock

did not deny being at 816-B Bellemeade Way on November 13, but

said he left prior to the shooting. Blalock also denied knowing or

ever having met Wright. Florence also denied any knowledge of the

crime or Blalock’s potential involvement in the crime. Detective

                                 8
Merritt testified that he did not take out an arrest warrant for

Blalock at that time because he wanted to acquire more information.

     On December 6, 2016, Florence was arrested in Cobb County

on an unrelated matter and was interviewed by Detective Merritt

again. At trial, Florence testified that, at this point, he had decided

to give Detective Merritt “what he want[ed]” to “get it off [his]

conscience.” Florence told Detective Merritt that, on the night of

November 14, 2014, Florence went to Blalock’s apartment, and

Blalock told Florence that “he shot that man off Bellemeade Way”

the night before. Blalock said that Wright had tried to rob him, so

he shot him, and after the shooting, Blalock “fled to the home of Lee

Hill.” According to Florence, Blalock then asked for a ride back over

to the Bellemeade area, and Florence drove Blalock and Usher to

Hill’s house. When they arrived, Blalock and Usher went through

“a pathway” between Hill’s house and 816-B Bellemeade Way

“where the shooting occurred.” Usher came out carrying a bag,

which she handed to Blalock, and Florence understood there was a

gun in the bag. Florence, Blalock, and Usher then left in Florence’s

                                  9
truck. On the way back to Blalock’s apartment, Blalock “pulled the

gun out” and “threw the clip” out of the window, and Blalock asked

Florence to stop at Fair Oaks Park, where Blalock threw the gun

somewhere in the woods.        Florence testified that, during this

timeframe, Blalock carried a 7-millimeter handgun. Blalock was

arrested shortly after Florence’s interview.

     At trial, Agent Paul Reynolds—a gang investigator who

testified for the State as an expert in criminal street gangs, criminal

street gang activity, and criminal street gang identification—

testified that, based on Blalock’s body tattoos and his relationship

to Florence—Blalock’s cousin who was a known member of the

Bloods, specifically, the “Bounty Hunter Blood[s]”—Blalock was “a

member[,] or at least at a minimum[,] an associate to the Bloods

criminal street gang.”

     1. On appeal, Blalock contends that the trial court abused its

discretion and violated Blalock’s due process rights by refusing to

grant his request for a continuance after he received a large amount

                                  10
of discovery from the State 13 days before trial. We see no merit to

this claim.

     The record reflects that Blalock was indicted on March 3, 2017,

and on April 3, 2017, he filed a statutory demand for speedy trial.

On April 7, 2017, Blalock filed 21 motions—16 of which were related

to discovery. On April 20, 2017, the State requested and Blalock

delivered approximately 40 blank compact discs to the State for

purposes of copying the State’s discovery in this case. The State

returned one of the discs with discovery on it to Blalock on April 21,

2017.

     On April 25, 2017, during Blalock’s formal arraignment

hearing, the trial court noted Blalock’s speedy trial demand and

inquired whether the parties would like “to go ahead and have a

specially set [trial] date.” Both sides responded affirmatively, and

the trial court advised that it would specially set trial for June 19,

2017. The prosecutor informed the trial court that “there might be

a superseding indictment” involving “some gang act charges,” but

the State would still “be ready on the 19th on that charge.” Defense

                                 11
counsel responded that “any superseding indictment involving gang

activity” could affect Blalock’s “ability to go forward on June the

19th.” The trial court inquired whether Blalock might “withdraw

[his] speedy trial demand,” and defense counsel responded that he

was “not saying that right now.” The trial court reiterated that it

had specially set trial for June 19.

     On May 15, 2017, Blalock filed a motion to compel the State’s

responses to Blalock’s discovery motions, and the trial court heard

the motion on May 25. At the hearing, defense counsel argued that

he had only received one compact disc of discovery from the State,

and the prosecutor responded that the State did “not plan on giving

discovery” on this indictment because the State “expected that the

Grand Jury would be considering additional charges including

violation of the Gang Act.” The prosecutor advised the trial court

that, once he had the new case number, the State would “comply

with discovery as the statute requires.”

     Defense counsel inquired whether the new indictment would

“eliminate the trial scheduled for June the 19th,” and the trial court

                                  12
responded that trial would still likely proceed at that time unless

Blalock withdrew his speedy-trial demand. Defense counsel did not

indicate that Blalock would be withdrawing his speedy-trial

demand, and he asked the trial court to rule on Blalock’s motion to

compel and require the State to turn over discovery on the current

indictment immediately. The prosecutor argued that the State did

“not want to provide discovery on an indictment” that would be nolle

prossed, and if Blalock opted into “reciprocal discovery on the new

case for the 19th,” then the State would turn over discovery in

accordance with the discovery statute.     The trial court advised

Blalock that it was denying the motion to compel at that time

because the State would be “go[ing] forward on a different

indictment,” for which Blalock would need to opt into discovery

again, and the trial court further noted that because Blalock “filed

the speedy trial demand,” it meant he was “ready for trial” and to

“try me just as soon as you can.”

     The superseding indictment was filed on May 26, 2017, adding

one count of felony murder and one count of violation of the Street

                                    13
Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act. 5          On June 2, Blalock was

formally arraigned on the new indictment, and defense counsel

advised the trial court that he wanted to “revisit this discovery

issue,” asking the trial court to order the State to turn over discovery

immediately since Blalock had opted into discovery on the new

indictment, as well. The prosecutor indicated that the State would

turn over discovery “as soon as possible.” The trial court set a

motions hearing for June 16.

     On June 6, the State produced discovery to Blalock on 37

compact discs. On June 14, Blalock filed a withdrawal of his demand

for speedy trial. On June 15, Blalock filed a motion for continuance,

seeking a continuance of the trial set for June 19 based on the

volume of discovery the State produced.

     At the motions hearing on June 16, defense counsel advised the

trial court that Blalock had withdrawn his demand for speedy trial

as of June 14, and the trial court indicated it had not been made

     5 The other charges from the original indictment were also included in
the superseding indictment.
                                    14
aware of the withdrawal. Defense counsel argued that there was

“absolutely no way [they could] actually prepare [for trial] with the

breadth of information” provided by the State, and defense counsel

did not “know of a competent attorney that would announce ready

for trial on a murder case that has gang-related issues to it.”

Defense counsel further argued that “there [was] no time to prepare

for this case in a proper fashion” because they “need[ed] time to

interview witnesses to determine whether or not their testimony

[was] credible and whether [they] need[ed] to put them under

subpoena” and “just [didn’t] have the time to do it.”

     The prosecutor responded that Blalock could have withdrawn

the speedy-trial demand “weeks ago,” but waited until right “before

the start of a specially-set trial.” The prosecutor argued that it was

“the defense’s strategic choice of filing a demand” for a speedy trial—

which was “an assertion that the defense [was] ready for trial”—and

then immediately filing for discovery. The prosecutor asserted that

the State’s discovery was “timely” and “in excess” of the ten days

required by statute, having been turned over 13 days before trial.

                                  15
See OCGA § 17-16-4 (a) (3) (A).6 The prosecutor also argued that

Blalock’s “filing [of] a speedy trial demand and withdrawing [it] at

the last minute” was a “strategic maneuver” Blalock should not be

allowed to use to “force the State into a position of [] hurrying up

and getting ready and going out and subpoenaing witnesses,” to only

be informed “at the last minute” that a speedy trial was “not really

what [the defense] want[ed].”          The prosecutor emphasized that

Blalock had been in possession of the State’s timely discovery “for

the better part of almost a week now” and reiterated that the State

was “ready for trial.”

     In response, defense counsel argued that “[t]he State

essentially want[ed] to punish Mr. Blalock for exercising his right to

     6 Pursuant to OCGA § 17-16-4 (a) (3) (a),
     the prosecuting attorney shall, no later than ten days prior to trial,
     or as otherwise ordered by the court, permit the defendant at a
     time agreed to by the parties or ordered by the court to inspect and
     copy or photograph books, papers, documents, photographs,
     tangible objects, audio and visual tapes, films and recordings, or
     copies or portions thereof and to inspect and photograph buildings
     or places which are within the possession, custody, or control of the
     state or prosecution and are intended for use by the prosecuting
     attorney as evidence in the prosecution’s case-in-chief or rebuttal
     at the trial or were obtained from or belong to the defendant.

                                      16
file a speedy demand for trial,” and that defense counsel did not

“have time to prepare” and “need[ed] a continuance.” The trial court

observed that it “thought this might be what [Blalock] might

attempt to do, but [the trial court’s staff] moved Heaven and Earth

to get the case tried next week.” The trial court denied the motion

for continuance and advised that trial would proceed on June 19.

The trial proceeded as scheduled.

     In denying Blalock’s motion for new trial, the trial court held

that it did not abuse its discretion in denying Blalock’s motion for

continuance because: (1) there was no discovery violation by the

State given that the State provided all of its discovery to Blalock

more than ten days prior to trial; (2) Blalock’s argument that he did

not have adequate time to review the discovery or prepare for trial

was “belied by the entirely reasonable strategy that [Blalock] was

able to employ during the trial and by the excellent performance of

his well-seasoned trial counsel, who had decades of experience and

who had tried hundreds of felony criminal jury trials”; (3) Blalock

was required to show that he was harmed by the denial of the motion

                                 17
for continuance and failed to do so; and (4) the gang expert and the

crime scene expert Blalock presented at the motion for new trial

hearing did not proffer any testimony which, had it been offered at

trial, would have affected the outcome of the trial with any

“reasonable probability,” especially in light of “the overwhelming

evidence” of Blalock’s guilt. 7

     On appeal, Blalock contends that the trial court abused its

discretion by refusing to grant his motion for continuance, asserting

the following: (1) Blalock exercised due diligence “in consistently

bringing the issue of no discovery before the trial court” and

“confront[ing]” the trial court with “the dire situation regarding the

discovery,” but the trial court denied Blalock’s motion to compel

discovery and his motion for continuance, improperly relying solely

     7   At the motion-for-new-trial hearing, the gang expert stated that he
would have testified at trial that Blalock’s gang-related tattoos looked faded
and did not necessarily indicate that Blalock was a gang member at the time
the crimes were committed. The crime scene expert stated that he would have
testified that Morrow, the passenger in Wright’s car, was likely the second
shooter. In denying Blalock’s motion for new trial, the trial court noted that
the gang expert’s testimony was “common sense” and that Blalock “was able to
present a cogent, reasonable defense even without the crime scene expert’s
testimony.”
                                     18
on Blalock’s speedy-trial demand; (2) while “the State did comply

with the letter of the law” in turning over discovery, the State

“outwardly refused to give discovery for months” and “waited until

the last minute to provide this massive amount of discovery”; (3)

because of the State’s “intentional delay,” the defense was “tactically

prevented” from conducting important deliberation and preparation

for trial; and (4) if Blalock had been given more time to prepare, he

would have consulted a gang expert and ballistics expert to testify

for the defense at trial, and he was “greatly harmed” by being

precluded from doing so.

     In considering a motion for continuance, the trial court
     enjoys broad discretion and may grant or refuse the
     motion as the ends of justice may require. To obtain a
     new trial based upon the denial of a motion for
     continuance, an appellant must show not only a clear
     abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying
     the motion but also that he was harmed by that denial.

Mann v. State, 307 Ga. 696, 703 (2) (d) (838 SE2d 305) (2020)

(citations and punctuation omitted). See also Terrell v. State, 304

Ga. 183, 185 (2) (815 SE2d 66) (2018) (“[R]equests for continuances

are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and this

                                  19
Court will not interfere unless there was a clear abuse of discretion.”

(citing OCGA § 17-8-22 8)). Blalock has not met this burden.

      Our review of the record demonstrates that the trial court

considered several factors in denying Blalock’s request for a

continuance, including the trial court’s special setting of the trial

date (and the efforts of its staff to accommodate that setting) to

comply with Blalock’s speedy-trial demand under OCGA § 17-7-

171—which Blalock did not withdraw until a few days before trial

and which was the impetus behind the shortened timeframe for

trial—as well as the fact that Blalock’s demand for a speedy trial

was an assertion that he was ready for trial.                 See Higuera-

Hernandez v. State, 289 Ga. 553, 559 (3) (714 SE2d 236) (2011)

(concluding that “it was apparent by his demand for trial [that]

Appellant had shortened the time for trial[,] which constituted a

factor for the trial court to consider when setting the trial date,” and

      8 OCGA § 17-8-22 provides in pertinent part: “All applications for
continuances are addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court and, if
not expressly provided for, shall be granted or refused as the ends of justice
may require.”
                                     20
the trial court’s prompt setting of the trial date was its attempt “to

comply with the demand for trial” (citation and punctuation

omitted)). See also Dalton v. State, 269 Ga. 138, 140 (429 SE2d 89)

(1993) (noting that, when the defendant filed a speedy-trial demand,

the trial court’s special setting of “the date of trial such that it would

be timely held” was the trial court’s “scrupulous[] attempt[] to

comply with the defendant’s demand that he be brought to trial

expeditiously,” and the defendant’s subsequent “motion for

continuance of this trial date” was an “affirmative action to ensure

that his trial could not be held within two terms of his demand for a

speedy trial”). The trial court also determined that the State timely

provided discovery to Blalock in accordance with OCGA § 17-6-4 (a)

(3) (A). “Given these facts, we cannot say that the trial court abused

its discretion in denying” Blalock’s “motion for continuance.” Mann,

307 Ga. at 703 (2) (d).

     Moreover, in considering the issue of the continuance at

Blalock’s motion for new trial hearing, the trial court assessed the

expert testimony that Blalock argued he would have introduced at

                                   21
trial had a continuance been granted and concluded that Blalock

failed to show that he was harmed by the trial court’s denial of his

request for a continuance or that the outcome of his trial would have

been different had this evidence been admitted. See Mann, 307 Ga.

at 703 (2) (d). We agree.

     As noted above, “to be entitled to a new trial based upon the

denial of a motion for a continuance, a defendant has the burden to

show that he was harmed by that denial.” Phoenix v. State, 304 Ga.

785, 788 (2) (822 SE2d 195) (2018) (citation and punctuation

omitted). Here, even if the trial court had abused its discretion in

denying the motion for continuance, Blalock has “made no showing

that this was harmful error.” Id. Although Blalock argues that a

continuance was necessary to give his counsel an opportunity to

consult experts to potentially testify on his behalf at trial, Blalock

has not shown that this testimony would have helped him

“formulate an effective defense” or “how the testimony would

[otherwise have] benefit[ed] him” had it been presented at trial. Id.

Under these circumstances, even if the trial court abused its

                                 22
discretion in denying the requested continuance, the denial was not

harmful to Blalock.

     Blalock also contends that the trial court’s denial of his motion

for continuance violated his right to due process of law by “forcing

the case to trial” too quickly and denying Blalock the “effective

representation of defense counsel” as a result. We disagree.

     As noted above, approximately one month after he was

indicted, Blalock filed a demand for a speedy trial, which meant he

was ready for trial and the State was required to try him within the

requisite timeframe. See OCGA § 17-7-171 (b) (providing that “[i]f

more than two regular terms of court are convened and adjourned

after the term at which the demand for speedy trial is filed and the

defendant is not given a trial, then the defendant shall be absolutely

discharged and acquitted of the offense charged in the indictment”).

See also State v. Varner, 277 Ga. 433, 434 (589 SE2d 111) (2003)

(explaining that “[t]he demand for trial statutes, OCGA §§ 17-7-170

and 17-7-171, are regarded as in aid and implementation of the

State constitutional right to a speedy trial,” and “[w]hen the State is

                                  23
unable to meet its statutory requirement to try a defendant who has

timely filed a compliant demand, the statute exacts a heavy toll—

the absolute discharge and acquittal of that defendant”). During

Blalock’s formal arraignment hearing, the trial court specially set

Blalock’s trial to comply with his speedy-trial demand, and the State

advised that it would likely be filing a superseding indictment with

additional “gang act” charges, which would not interfere with the

scheduled trial date. The trial court then inquired whether Blalock

would be withdrawing his speedy-trial demand on this basis, and

Blalock indicated he would not be doing so. Over the next several

weeks, even after the superseding indictment was filed, Blalock did

not withdraw his speedy-trial demand, waiting until a few days

before the specially-set trial to do so. Accordingly, given that Blalock

chose not to withdraw his speedy-trial demand when given the

opportunity to do so and his delay in withdrawing the demand until

shortly before his trial was scheduled to commence, we see no

violation of Blalock’s due process rights in the trial court’s denial of

his motion for continuance.        For this additional reason, this

                                  24
enumeration of error fails. 9

      2.   Blalock also contends that his trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance by failing to argue that the discovery statute,

see OCGA § 17-16-4 (a) (3) (A), was unconstitutional as applied in

this case. We conclude that Blalock failed to demonstrate that his

trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective.

      “To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a

defendant generally must show that counsel’s performance was

deficient, and that the deficient performance resulted in prejudice to

the defendant. Moss v. State, 311 Ga. 123, 126 (2) (856 SE2d 280)

(2021) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-695 (104

SCt 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984)). “To prove deficient performance,”

a defendant “must show that his counsel performed in an objectively

      9  While we recognize that, in a criminal case like this one, there may be
valid strategic reasons for delayed action, we remind defense attorneys and
prosecutors alike that trial strategy need not, and should not, require counsel
to compromise their ethical obligations to practice law with a high degree of
professionalism. See King v. State, 262 Ga. 477, 478 (421 SE2d 708) (1992)
(Benham, J., concurring) (“We have sought to raise the level of consciousness
of all those who participate in court proceedings to encourage them to adhere
to principles of honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, integrity, fairness and
civility.”).
                                      25
unreasonable way considering all the circumstances and in light of

prevailing professional norms.” Ward v. State, 313 Ga. 265, 273 (4)

(869 SE2d 470) (2022) (citation and punctuation omitted).

     The reasonableness of counsel’s conduct is examined from
     counsel’s perspective at the time of trial and under the
     particular circumstances of the case, and decisions
     regarding trial tactics and strategy may form the basis for
     an ineffectiveness claim only if they were so patently
     unreasonable that no competent attorney would have
     followed such a course.

Taylor v. State, 312 Ga. 1, 15-16 (6) (860 SE2d 470) (2021) (citations

and punctuation omitted). See also Robinson v. State, 278 Ga. 31,

36 (2) (d) (597 SE2d 386) (2004) (“As a general rule, matters of

reasonable trial tactics and strategy, whether wise or unwise, do not

amount to ineffective assistance of counsel,” and “[a] reviewing court

evaluates trial counsel’s performance from counsel’s perspective at

the time of trial.”). “To satisfy the prejudice prong, a defendant must

establish a reasonable probability that, in the absence of counsel’s

deficient performance, the result of the trial would have been

different.” Moss, 311 Ga. at 126 (2). “If an appellant fails to meet

his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the

                                  26
reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong.” Id.

(citation and punctuation omitted).

     On appeal, Blalock contends that the “timing of the receipt of

the [State’s] discovery was the central issue throughout pre-trial

motions” in this case, and while he does not dispute that the State’s

production of discovery was timely under OCGA § 17-16-4 (a) (3) (A),

he argues that his experienced trial counsel was nevertheless

deficient for failing to take the “necessary step of arguing that the

statute itself was unconstitutional” as applied in this case. Blalock

further contends that “[t]he issue of the constitutionality of OCGA §

17-16-4 is a critical argument” that this Court needs to address—in

light of the increase in the amount of discovery over the last decade

which negatively impacts “criminal defendants’ ability to prepare a

meaningful defense”—and thus, the failure of his trial counsel to

properly assert and preserve this issue prevented Blalock from

seeking a ruling thereon and prejudiced him in this case.

     Blalock has not cited any case addressing a constitutional

challenge to OCGA § 17-16-4 (a) (3) (A), either on its face or as

                                 27
applied, and given that we have found no authority even suggesting

that the statute’s constitutionality might be doubted, “trial counsel’s

failure to raise a novel legal argument does not constitute ineffective

assistance of counsel.” Griffin v. State, 309 Ga. 516, 520 (2) (847

SE2d 168) (2020) (quotation and punctuation omitted). See also

Esprit v. State, 305 Ga. 429, 438 (2) (c) (826 SE2d 7) (2019) (“A

criminal defense attorney does not perform deficiently when he fails

to advance a legal theory that would require an extension of existing

precedents and the adoption of an unproven theory of law.” (Citation

and punctuation omitted.)). Because Blalock has not demonstrated

that his trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to raise a

constitutional challenge to OCGA § 17-16-4 (a) (3) (A), his claim of

ineffective assistance fails.

     3. In Blalock’s final contention, he asserts that the trial court

erred in permitting one of the State’s witnesses to comment on

Blalock’s post-arrest silence, which was “a violation of his

constitutional rights.” We conclude that, even if the trial court

                                  28
abused its discretion in allowing this evidence to be admitted, any

such abuse of discretion was harmless error.

      During   defense    counsel’s   cross-examination    of   Agent

Reynolds, the State’s gang expert, the following exchange occurred:

    DEFENSE COUNSEL: “What chapter of Bloods or set or
    whatever you want to call it does Mr. Blalock belong to?”
    AGENT REYNOLDS: “I don’t know. He wouldn’t talk to
    me about it.”
    DEFENSE COUNSEL: “What were his local hangouts?”
    AGENT REYNOLDS: “I don’t know. He wouldn’t talk to
    me.”

At the conclusion of the prosecutor’s redirect examination of this

witness, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. At that point, the

trial court inquired as to the basis for the motion, and the following

exchange occurred:

     DEFENSE COUNSEL: “The fact that this officer twice
     testified and violated the Defendant’s right to remain
     silent when he said that the Defendant refused to talk to
     me.”
     PROSECUTOR: “That was responsive to her question.”
     COURT: “It was responsive to her question. So I will
     overrule the objection. You asked him specifically what
     chapter does he belong to. He said, I don’t know; he
     wouldn’t talk to me.”
     DEFENSE COUNSEL: “He could have said, ‘I don’t
     know.’ I didn’t ask him—I said what chapter does he

                                 29
     belong to. He is qualified as a gang expert, your Honor.
     All of those questions that I asked about all of the
     research that he can do to determine what chapter he’s a
     gang member of, he didn’t do. That is the answer to the
     question, not that Defendant didn’t talk to me. There are
     a million other ways to figure out what chapter he is a
     member of, other than asking the Defendant a pointed
     question.”
     COURT: “Do you have anything else?”
     PROSECUTOR: “I do not.”
     COURT: “I will overrule the objection. I think it was
     responsive to the question.”

     Later, in denying Blalock’s motion for new trial, the trial court

concluded that Agent Reynolds’s comments did not require a

reversal.   In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied on

Whitaker v. State, 283 Ga. 521, 524 (3) (661 SE2d 557) (2008), in

which the Court explained that

     testimony about the defendant remaining silent is not
     deemed to be prejudicial if it is made during a narrative
     on the part of the authorities of a course of events and
     apparently was not intended to, nor did it have the effect
     of, being probative on the guilt or innocence of the
     defendant. Indeed, to warrant a reversal of a defendant’s
     conviction, the evidence of the election to remain silent
     must point directly at the substance of the defendant’s
     defense or otherwise substantially prejudice the
     defendant in the eyes of the jury.

                                 30
Id. (citations and punctuation omitted). The trial court held that

Agent Reynolds’s comments did not directly implicate Blalock’s

defense and were not directed to any particular statement or defense

offered by Blalock. The trial court concluded that nothing had been

presented to show that Agent Reynolds’s comments “were intended

to, or did, have the effect of being probative on the issue of guilt or

innocence.”

     On appeal, Blalock argues that the trial court erred in

admitting Agent Reynolds’s testimony commenting on Blalock’s

post-arrest silence.

     Because this error involves the defendant’s constitutional
     rights, the defendant would be entitled to a new trial
     unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
     The determination of harmless error must be made on a
     case by case basis, taking into consideration the facts, the
     trial context of the error, and the prejudice created
     thereby as juxtaposed against the strength of the
     evidence of the defendant’s guilt.

Brewer v. Hall, 278 Ga. 511, 513 (3) (603 SE2d 244) (2004). We

conclude that, even assuming the trial court abused its discretion in

                                  31
admitting Agent Reynolds’s testimony, any such abuse of discretion

was harmless error.

     An examination of the context in which this error occurred

shows that Agent Reynolds’s testimony was very unlikely to have

affected the jury’s verdict in any way.      Our review of the record

shows that the State made no “effort to draw the jury’s attention to

the officer’s comment,” to “convince the jury to infer guilt from”

Blalock’s silence, or to exploit the exercise of Blalock’s right to

remain silent. Brewer, 278 Ga. at 513 (2). “Accordingly, analyzing

the comment in context, it is very unlikely to have had any impact

on the jury’s determination of guilt.” Id.

     Additionally, the evidence of Blalock’s guilt in this case was

strong. Blalock was charged with malice murder and other crimes

connected with the fatal shooting of Wright on the night of

November 13, 2014. The evidence shows that, earlier that night,

Blalock and Wright spoke on the telephone and arranged to meet in

the Bellemeade area to conduct a drug deal.            Morrow, who

accompanied Wright to meet Blalock, testified that he was in the car

                                  32
during the shooting, and he identified Blalock as the shooter. Dyer

testified that Blalock was at his house on Bellemeade Way—

adjacent to the crime scene—minutes before the shooting took place,

and saliva matching Blalock’s DNA was found in close proximity to

the crime scene. Hill and Florence also testified that, shortly after

the shooting, Blalock admitted that he shot someone on Bellemeade

Way on the night of November 13. The day after the shooting,

Florence took Blalock to Hill’s house, and he saw Blalock retrieve a

bag from an area close to the crime scene. Florence later observed

Blalock remove a handgun from the bag and dispose of it. Dyer and

Florence testified that Blalock was known to carry a rare 7-

millimeter handgun, and 7.62-millimeter shell casings were found

at the crime scene.

     For these reasons, we conclude that any improper testimony

from Agent Reynolds regarding Blalock’s silence “was harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the outcome of Blalock’s trial was

not affected by the admission of this testimony. Brewer, 278 Ga. at

513 (2). Thus, this final enumeration fails.

                                 33
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

                          34