Foster v. State, 318 Ga. App. 124

Foster was convicted of one count of armed robbery after a jury trial.
At the motion for a new trial, the trial court found trial counsel deficient but not prejudicial.
Foster argues defense counsel failed to investigate and call a witness whose testimony would show no involvement.
The trial court found the witness’s testimony amounted to rumored hearsay and impeachment evidence with no reasonable probability of changing the outcome.
The State produced overwhelming evidence of Foster’s guilt: accomplices identified him, Humphries identified him, and Foster was near the crime scene with the gun.
This Court affirms the denial of the new-trial motion under the substantial-prejudice standard and the right-for-any-reason rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there substantial prejudice from counsel’s failure to call the witness?	Foster	Foster	No substantial prejudice; outcome not likely different.
Would Troy’s testimony have changed the outcome given the overwhelming evidence?	Foster	Foster	No, testimony would not have changed result; credibility issues and strong identification evidence.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance plus prejudice)
Hill v. State, 291 Ga. 160 (2012) (purposeful application of Strickland in Georgia)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
Ziegler v. State, 270 Ga. App. 787 (2004) (alibi/identity evidence considerations in prejudice)
Jones v. State, 266 Ga. App. 679 (2004) (alibi/notice and identification considerations in prejudice)
Fedak v. State, 304 Ga. App. 580 (2010) (cases where missing testimony could have been determinative)
Tenorio v. State, 261 Ga. App. 609 (2003) (defense effectiveness where alibi testimony could have been decisive)
Arellano-Campos v. State, 307 Ga. App. 561 (2011) (application of right-for-any-reason rule to affirm)