However, assuming that trial counsel did not effectively reserve an objection to the charge at issue, this does not aid Futch's claim of ineffectiveness because the language, which is from the pattern charge, is a correct statement of the law and does not improperly direct a finding on the question of intent. See Chappell v. State, 290 Ga.App. 691, 659 S.E.2d 919 (2008); Coney v. State, 290 Ga.App. 364, 366(1), 659 S.E.2d 768 (2008). Compare Harris v. State, 273 Ga. 608, 543 S.E.2d 716 (2001).