Compare OCGA §§ 16-13-26 (1) (D), 16-13-30 (c) with Cal. Health & Saf. Code §§ 11054 (f), 11350 (a) (possession of cocaine), and OCGA § 16-8-40 with Cal. Pen. Code § 211 (robbery). Thus, Williams has not shown that an objection by his counsel would have been successful, nor has he established that his counsel’s allegedly deficient performance prejudiced his defense. See Hendrix, 284 Ga. at 422 (2); Lattimore v. State, 282 Ga. App. 435, 437 (3) (638 SE2d 848) (2006). Consequently, Williams’s ineffective assistance claim fails. Id. 2. Williams next argues that he was illegally sentenced as a recidivist because the state failed to prove that the former guilty pleas had been entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238 (89 SC 1709, 23 LE2d 274) (1969) (<HOLDING>). When a criminal defendant challenges the
holding that due process requires state courts to make an affirmative showing that a guilty plea is intelligent and voluntary holding that for a trial judge to accept a defendants guilty plea without an affirmative showing that it was intelligent and voluntary violates the defendants constitutional rights holding that in order to secure a reversal the appellant has an affirmative duty of showing error upon the fee ord holding that a valid plea requires an affirmative showing of voluntariness on the record in order to conclude that a defendant has waived his constitutional rights holding that a failure to advise even when the defendant has an affirmative obligation to do so is not the same as engaging in affirmative misconduct 