 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Forshman v. State7/29/1999
that such statements previously had been barred by the trial court. However, Forsman's citation to the record does not demonstrate such ruling, nor does this Court find any such ruling in the record. See footnote 4, supra.
Further, the State is entitled to make reasonable inferences from the evidence during argument to the jury. "The record reveals that these statements were proper inferences. See Morgan v. State, 267 Ga. 203, 203 (1) (476 SE2d 747) (1996) (counsel on closing argument may draw from the evidence any reasonable and legitimate inference)." Whatley v. State, 270 Ga. 296, 302 (15) (a) (___ SE2d ___) (1998). There was no basis for objection for trial counsel.
(b) Forsman's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to references regarding his refusal to submit to additional field sobriety tests is without merit, pursuant to our decision in Division 3, supra.
(c) Forsman asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the State had a higher standard of proof because only circumstantial evidence was presented. However, as presented in Division 2, supra, both direct and circumstantial evidence was presented in this case.
Therefore, as the record in this case clearly demonstrates that trial counsel's performance was not deficient, it is unnecessary to address the second prong of the test under Strickland v. Washington, supra.
9. Pursuant to this Court's decision in the preceding Divisions, Forsman's remaining enumeration is without merit.
Judgment affirmed. Pope, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|