to adequately prepare. Howard also generally contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not spending enough time meeting with witnesses prior to trial. But trial counsel’s testimony during the hearing on the motion for new trial, that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance in failing to call witness given counsel’s testimony that he determined witness would not be favorable for defendant). 36 See Rice v. State, 292 Ga. 191, 209 (9) (d) (733 SE2d 755) (2012) (finding that contrary to defendant’s claim, trial counsel did investigate case by consulting with a computer expert on certain issues, and therefore, trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance in this regard); Gadson v. State, 252 Ga. App. 347, 352 (11) (c) (556 SE2d 449) (2001) (<HOLDING>). 37 See supra note 30; see also Maxwell v.
holding that defendant failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting to the states leading questions when there was no evidence that such failure was not based on trial strategy holding that defendant failed to show that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate the case because record demonstrated that counsel did in fact prepare for trial and interview witnesses holding counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of the appellants good conduct in prison