the victim that occurred over the roughly three-week period she lived with him and worked as a prostitute (that could have given rise to additional charges of child molestation) cannot mean that his counsel was ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesser-included offense based on a specific incident for which there was no evidence that anything other than aggravated child molestation occurred. Indeed, we have previously held that “such failure cannot support a claim of ineffective assistance [when] as here the evidence does not reasonably raise the issue that [the defendant] may be guilty only of the lesser crime.” Furthermore, counsel’s testimony as to his theory of the case — i.e., that the victim was lying about Pepe- , 275 Ga. App. 671, 675 (3) (621 SE2d 616) (2005) (<HOLDING>). 45 See, e.g., Porras, 295 Ga. at 420 (3) n.8
recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that once counsel was appointed defendant spoke to the court through counsel and thus the court was not required to respond to defendants request for a speedy trial holding that the defendants prior conviction was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel because he had the opportunity for appointed counsel at public expense holding that trial courts admonishment when defendant interrupted pronouncement of sentence was not a violation of defendants right to allocution when at the sentencing hearing the defendants counsel spoke on his behalf holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court in the defendants absence did not afford  defense counsel an opportunity to present information in mitigation of punishment