Chaput v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Chaput v. State

310 S.E.2d 11, 168 Ga. App. 554, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2847

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 21, 1983

Docket66669

StatusPublished

This text of 310 S.E.2d 11 (Chaput v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chaput v. State, 310 S.E.2d 11, 168 Ga. App. 554, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2847 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and convicted of simple battery.

The sole enumeration of error on appeal is the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Appellant essentially asserts that his trial counsel presented no defense. He does not, however, suggest any defense that could have been asserted which was not presented at trial.

“It is clear from the record that appellant’s counsel chose to submit no evidence nor to have him testify in his own behalf, thus avoiding cross examination and requiring the state to prove each fact in the case against him. Having failed in that, he now assigns error on his attorney’s not pursuing another strategy. There is nothing before this court, however, to show that the verdict of guilty . . . was not proper.” Gaines v. State, 232 Ga. 727, 731 (208 SE2d 798) (1974). “[Ajlthough other counsel may have pursued a different tactic this does not mean that defendant did not receive a vigorous and competent defense. Decisions of counsel, properly described as trial tactics, do not equate to ineffective assistance of counsel. [Cit.] We do not find the representation of defendant to be so inadequate as to amount to a denial of effective assistance from counsel. [Cits.]” Harrell v. State, 139 Ga. App. 556, 558 (228 SE2d 723) (1976).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carley, Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and convicted of simple battery.

The sole enumeration of error on appeal is the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Appellant essentially asserts that his trial counsel presented no defense. He does not, however, suggest any defense that could have been asserted which was not presented at trial.

“It is clear from the record that appellant’s counsel chose to submit no evidence nor to have him testify in his own behalf, thus avoiding cross examination and requiring the state to prove each fact in the case against him. Having failed in that, he now assigns error on his attorney’s not pursuing another strategy. There is nothing before this court, however, to show that the verdict of guilty . . . was not proper.” Gaines v. State, 232 Ga. 727, 731 (208 SE2d 798) (1974). “[Ajlthough other counsel may have pursued a different tactic this does not mean that defendant did not receive a vigorous and competent defense. Decisions of counsel, properly described as trial tactics, do not equate to ineffective assistance of counsel. [Cit.] We do not find the representation of defendant to be so inadequate as to amount to a denial of effective assistance from counsel. [Cits.]” Harrell v. State, 139 Ga. App. 556, 558 (228 SE2d 723) (1976).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 S.E.2d 11, 168 Ga. App. 554, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaput-v-state-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack