Since the charge conference involves essentially legal argument about which the defendant presumably has no knowledge, he would not have made a meaningful contribution nor gained anything by his presence. Thus, we agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that a charge conference "is not one of those proceedings at which a defendant has an unequivocal right to be present."Aleman v. State, 227 Ga. App. 607, 613 ( 489 S.E.2d 867) (1997). Accord Ricarte v. State, 249 Ga. App. 50 (1) (S.E.2d) (2001) (charge conference does not occur during the presentation of evidence, and is not part of the proceedings); McBride v. State, 213 Ga. App. 857 (11) ( 446 S.E.2d 193) (1994); Simmons v. State, 172 Ga. App. 695 (2) ( 324 S.E.2d 546) (1984) (trial judge is not required to converse with counsel regarding jury instructions).

No deficient performance having been shown, appellant's ineffective assistance claim must fail. See Aleman v. State, 227 Ga. App. 607 (2) (b) ( 489 S.E.2d 867) (1997). 4. After the trial court sustained appellant's objection to testimony by Bobby Elrod, the trial court denied his motion for mistrial and agreed to instruct the jury to disregard the evidence, but failed to do so when trial resumed.

See Engrisch , 293 Ga. App. at 812, 668 S.E.2d 319. See also Blocker , 265 Ga. App. at 852 (5), 595 S.E.2d 654 (it is jury's prerogative to disbelieve a defendant's testimony; such is the assumed risk when a defendant chooses to testify); Aleman v. State , 227 Ga. App. 607, 609 (1), 489 S.E.2d 867 (1997). Although Willis claimed at trial and claims on appeal that he "attempted to flee at the earliest possible opportunity when he did not believe he would be immediately murdered by Wakefield," the jury was not required to believe him.

Accord Rodriguez v. State, 306 Ga. App. 169, 170 (1) ( 702 SE2d 10) (2010).Aleman v. State, 227 Ga. App. 607, 608 (1) ( 489 SE2d 867) (1997). Accord Bentley v. State, 261 Ga. 229, 230 (2) ( 404 SE2d 101) (1991).

At the hearing on Stillwell's motion for new trial, trial counsel testified that he decided, as a matter of strategy, not to request further relief because he did not want to draw any more attention to the vague statement about Stillwell's background. This strategic decision was not unreasonable, and matters of reasonable trial strategy do not amount to ineffective assistance. See Aleman v. State, 227 Ga. App. 607, 612-613 (3) (d) ( 489 SE2d 867) (1997); see also Evans, supra at 107 (3) (trial strategy and tactics do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel). (c) During the state's case-in-chief, the prosecutor called Cheryl's father — with whom Stillwell, Cheryl, and the victim lived shortly before Cheryl's death — as a witness.

Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Hodge's claim on this ground. See id. at 117 (7); Wynn v. State, 228 Ga. App. 124, 129 (3) (d) ( 491 SE2d 149) (1997); Aleman v. State, 227 Ga. App. 607, 614 (3) (h) ( 489 SE2d 867) (1997). (b) Hodge also argues that trial counsel failed to adequately prepare for trial. Specifically, he claims that counsel's busy schedule prevented counsel from sufficiently reviewing the discovery produced by the State. At the hearing on Hodge's motion for new trial, however, counsel testified that he spent 45 to 50 hours reviewing the discovery before trial. Before opening statements, he completed his review — including watching all videotapes — and prepared a trial notebook.

Benefield v. State, 278 Ga. 464, 465 ( 602 SE2d 631) (2004).Aleman v. State, 227 Ga. App. 607, 614 (3) (h) ( 489 SE2d 867) (1997). 3. Vonhagel claims the trial court erred when it did not sua sponte declare a mistrial after prejudicial testimony from his own character witnesses on cross-examination and from Weckerly.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Aleman v. State, 227 Ga. App. 607, 612 (3) (b) ( 489 SE2d 867) (1997). See also London v. State, 260 Ga. App. at 784 (7).

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Aleman v. State, 227 Ga. App. 607, 612 (3) (b) ( 489 SE2d 867) (1997). But even assuming that his attorney was deficient in failing to request this instruction, Godfrey has failed to establish how this deficiency prejudiced his defense.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Aleman v. State, 227 Ga. App. 607, 612 (3) (b) ( 489 SE2d 867) (1997). MIKELL, Judge.