" (Footnote omitted.) Strickland v. State, 258 Ga. 764, 765-766 (1) ( 373 SE2d 736) (1988), overruled in part on other grounds, Washington v. State, 276 Ga. 655 ( 581 SE2d 518) (2003). A trial court also retains jurisdiction to rule on a motion for withdrawal and substitution of defense counsel, Elrod v. State, 222 Ga. App. 704, 705 (1) ( 475 SE2d 710) (1996); to appoint appellate counsel, Spear v. State, 271 Ga. App. 845, n. 1 ( 610 SE2d 642) (2005); to dismiss an appeal and to assist in preparing the record, State v. James, 211 Ga. App. 149, 150 (2) ( 438 SE2d 399) (1993); and to consider the State's petition to nolle prosequi a second indictment after the defendant filed a notice of appeal from the court's former jeopardy ruling on the second indictment.

Cody v. State, 277 Ga. 553(1), 592 S.E.2d 419 (2004) See also Cody v. State, 277 Ga. 553(1), 592 S.E.2d 419 (2004) (accord); Washington v. State, 276 Ga. 655, 656(1), 581 S.E.2d 518 (2003) (accord). See also Porter v. State, 271 Ga. 498, 521 S.E.2d 566 (1999) (accord); Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872(1), 452 S.E.2d 756 (1995) (accord).

On April 4, 2019, Perez refiled his motion for a new trial under the correct case number after the trial court granted Perez's request for leave to file an out-of-time motion for a new trial. See Washington v. State , 276 Ga. 655, 656 (1), 581 S.E.2d 518 (2003). The trial court held a hearing on the motion on June 25, 2019, and entered an order denying the motion on August 15, 2019.

“An attorney's decision about which defense to present is a question of trial strategy.” Washington v. State, 276 Ga. 655, 659(3)(b), 581 S.E.2d 518 (2003). Unless the choice of strategy is objectively unreasonable, such that no competent trial counsel would have pursued such a course, we will not second-guess counsel's decisions in this regard.

On May 1, 2013, Kilgore filed a motion for leave to file an out-of-time motion for new trial, which was granted by the trial court on May 20, 2013. See Washington v. State, 276 Ga. 655, 656(1), 581 S.E.2d 518 (2003). Kilgore filed a second motion for new trial on June 19, 2013, and the trial court denied that motion on the merits on November 11, 2013. Kilgore timely filed a notice of appeal on December 5, 2013.

In this connection, the witness had previously told police that another man, not Wright, had placed a gun in the shed, and the witness had said nothing about Wright being involved with a gun at the time that he was initially interviewed by Wright's counsel. Because counsel's strategy to portray the witness as a liar rather than object to his testimony was reasonable, Wright has not met his burden of showing ineffective assistance. See, e.g., Washington v. State, 276 Ga. 655, 659(3)(a), 581 S.E.2d 518 (2003) (“The manner in which an attorney attacks the credibility of a witness falls within the ambit of trial tactics”) (citation omitted). 3. Wright also contends that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of certain testimony at trial.

(Punctuation omitted.) Washington v. State, 276 Ga. 655, 658(3), 581 S.E.2d 518 (2003). If an appellant fails to meet either prong of the Strickland test, it is not incumbent upon this Court to examine the other prong. Battles v. State, 290 Ga. 226, 229, 719 S.E.2d 423 (2011). At the hearing on appellant's motion for new trial, trial counsel, an experienced criminal defense attorney, explained that he did not object when the eyewitness' hearsay statements were introduced at trial because he knew she would be testifying herself in the course of the trial and he wanted to be able to show inconsistencies in her statements.

(Punctuation omitted.) Washington v. State, 276 Ga. 655, 658(3), 581 S.E.2d 518 (2003). If an appellant fails to meet either prong of the Strickland test, it is not incumbent upon this Court to examine the other prong.

(Punctuation omitted.) Washington v. State, 276 Ga. 655, 658(3), 581 S.E.2d 518 (2003). If an appellant fails to meet either prong of the Strickland test, it is not incumbent upon this Court to examine the other prong. Battles v. State, 290 Ga. 226, 229, 719 S.E.2d 423 (2011). The trial court conducted a hearing on appellant's motion for a new trial and determined that Ivan did not render ineffective assistance.

]” Smith v. State, supra at 354(8)(i), 703 S.E.2d 629. See also Washington v. State, 276 Ga. 655, 659(3)(c), 581 S.E.2d 518 (2003). Trial counsel testified that testimony regarding Neal's peaceful character would have opened the door to additional adverse character evidence which had been excluded by the trial court, including the testimony of another ex-girlfriend who was present and ready to testify about Neal's bad character.