In the Interest of S. U

7 Citing cases

  1. Daniels v. State

    296 Ga. App. 795 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 18 times
    Holding counsel's failure to interview witnesses did not amount to deficient performance where he had read their prior statements, reviewed the state's file in the matter, was experienced in trying similar cases, was familiar with the applicable law, and was not surprised by other evidence adduced at trial

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of S. U., 232 Ga. App. 798, 800 (1) ( 503 SE2d 66) (1998). Here, the state's case was straightforward and was not convoluted. Daniels's trial counsel was familiar with the case, had discussed the case and the defense with Daniels, had reviewed the state's entire file, and had prepared a pretrial motion to suppress, an opening statement, and examination questions for trial. Daniels had not informed his trial counsel of any other witnesses or defenses that could have been presented on his behalf.

  2. Jackson v. State

    314 Ga. App. 272 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute when, inter alia , the defendant was observed handling "lots" of marijuana (i.e. , 26.45 ounces) packaged into three individual bags with a street value of over $1,000

    In the absence of evidence establishing that there was a reasonable likelihood that additional trial preparation would have changed trial counsel's advice or the outcome of the trial, Esters's claim fails. See Hammett v. State, 297 Ga.App. 235, 237, 676 S.E.2d 880 (2009); In the Interest of S.U., 232 Ga.App. 798, 801(2), 503 S.E.2d 66 (1998). Judgments affirmed.

  3. In the Interest of C. L

    289 Ga. App. 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 9 times
    Affirming denial of motion for continuance where juvenile adjudicated delinquent failed to show harm or how continuance would have benefitted him in any way

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of S. U., 232 Ga. App. 798, 800 (1) ( 503 SE2d 66) (1998). Additionally, "[w]hen there is no showing that a continuance would have benefitted the defendant, he has not established harm in the denial of the continuance."

  4. In the Interest of J.D

    619 S.E.2d 818 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 5 times

    Accordingly, this Canon does not apply. In the Interest of S.U., 232 Ga. App. 798, 801 (3) ( 503 SE2d 66) (1998). Compare Paul v. State, 272 Ga. 845, 849 (3) ( 537 SE2d 58) (2000) ("plain error" doctrine applies in criminal cases to allegations of improper judicial commentary under OCGA § 17-8-57).

  5. Berry v. State

    262 Ga. App. 375 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that claim of ineffective assistance had no merit when defendant did not point to any instances reflecting a lack of preparation

    (b) Berry also claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney was not prepared for trial. This claim has no merit. Berry does not support this argument other than by showing that he expressed his dissatisfaction with his attorney immediately before trial. Because Berry does not point to any instances in the record that reflect a lack of preparedness on the part of his defense counsel, Berry has not shown that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. See In the Interest of S.U., 232 Ga. App. 798, 801(2) ( 503 S.E.2d 66) (1998). (c) Lastly, Berry claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to make a motion for mistrial.

  6. Geiger v. State

    573 S.E.2d 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 8 times

    Geiger has not shown that, due to lack of preparation, counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. See generally In the Interest of S. U., 232 Ga. App. 798, 801(2) ( 503 S.E.2d 66) (1998). c. Nor has Geiger shown that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's statement in closing regarding nudism.

  7. Whitaker v. State

    256 Ga. App. 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 14 times

    Whitaker's further contention that the trial court improperly commented on the evidence in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 is also without merit because that Code section is applicable only to jury trials, not to a bench trial with the trial court acting as factfinder. In the Interest of S. U., 232 Ga. App. 798, 801 (3) ( 503 S.E.2d 66) (1998). Whitaker's credibility, intelligence, and understanding were crucial to a determination of whether his waiver of jury trial was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and the trial court as finder of fact was not only permitted but obligated to reach a conclusion on such issues.