of counsel.” Indeed, which witnesses to call and all other strategies and tactical decisions are “the exclusive province of the lawyer after consultation with his client, and whether an attorney’s trial tactics are reasonable is a question of law, not fact.” Turning to the specific witnesses at issue, with regard to Patricia, trial counsel testified that Howard only knew her first name and believed that she had attended Crandall College. Based on this information, trial counsel searched the college’s records, but was unable to find Patricia. But given Howard’s lack of sufficient information regarding this alleged witness’s full name, her whereabouts, or how to find her, trial counsel’s failure to locate her certainly (722 SE2d 705) (2012) (punctuation omitted). 39 Id. 40 See id.
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to grant the defendant an evidentiary hearing  because the defendant failed to proffer any evidence that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance 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 failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy holding that defendants conclusory allegation that trial counsel failed to object to leading questions without specifying such instances did not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel