Espinosa v. State, 309 Ga. App. 877

Espinosa was convicted by jury of trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; the trial court denied a new trial.
Evidence at trial included drugs, cash, scales, packaging materials, and other paraphernalia seized from Espinosa’s residence and the Northridge apartment.
The State introduced evidence of two similar transactions: (1) June 23, 2006 armed-robbery investigation discovery near Espinosa’s residence with a bag of suspected cocaine and marijuana found nearby; and (2) April 5, 2007 road checkpoint incident with marijuana and cocaine packages thrown from a vehicle.
Espinosa challenged the admission of similar-transaction evidence and claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not interviewing a key witness to rebut it.
Espinosa argued on appeal that the court erred in admitting the similar-transaction evidence and that trial counsel’s failure to interview Hill prejudiced the defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of similar-transaction evidence	Espinosa argues the evidence was improperly admitted	State asserts admissibility under rule of similar transactions	Waived; trial objection not raised, so no review
Ineffective assistance for not calling Hill	Hill’s testimony could rebut similar-transactions	Counsel's strategic decision not to call Hill was reasonable	No ineffective assistance; strategic decision upheld

Warner v. State, 299 Ga.App. 56 (2009) (preservation rule for similar-transaction evidence)
Shropshire v. State, 223 Ga.App. 118 (1996) (approval of preservation requirements)
Crawford v. State, 302 Ga.App. 782 (2010) (trial strategy in witness calling not generally ineffective assistance)
Hall v. State, 243 Ga.App. 804 (2000) (trial strategy broad discretion; not ineffectiveness per se)
Parks v. State, 304 Ga.App. 175 (2010) (ineffective assistance framework; performance deficient Test)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance)