to the public safety.” And here, the evidence established that, while engaged in sexual intercourse with his girlfriend, Pepe-Frazier summoned the 14-year-old victim, who was working alongside other young women as a prostitute on his behalf, to his room and placed his penis in her mouth while his testicles were placed in his girlfriend’s mouth. Under these circumstances, Pepe-Frazier’s sentence does not raise a threshold inference of gross disproportionality. Accordingly, he has failed to show either deficient performance by trial counsel or a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different if the constitutional challenges had been timely raised, and his ineffectiv (a) (574 SE2d 383) (2002); see also Head v. State, 233 Ga. App. 655, 659 (4) (504 SE2d 499) (1998) (<HOLDING>). 27 See Gordon v. State, 327 Ga. App. 774, 781
holding that where jury was instructed on both a greater offense and lesserincluded offense and the jury convicted on the lesserincluded offense the double jeopardy provision prohibited retrial on the greater offense recognizing that it is within  our power to direct entry of judgment on a lesser included offense when vacating a greater offense if the commission of the lesser offense can be established from facts that the jury actually found citations omitted holding that had trial counsel requested charge on lesserincluded offense of child molestation to charged offense of aggravated child molestation trial court would have been required to give the charge on the lesserincluded offense when defendant testified that during incident in question he was hugging the victims stomach not performing oral sex holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense holding that court of appealss remedy on remand from reversal for harmful charge error based on failure to meet second step of rousseau lesserincludedoffense test was to remand for a retrial for the lesser offense  because the jurys verdict that the appellant was guilty of the lesserincluded offense  operates as an acquittal of the greater offense  to which jeopardy had attached this prevents a retrial for the greater offense but not for the lesser offense