Shields v. State, 307 Ga. App. 830

Shields was convicted by jury in Hall County of five counts aggravated assault, three counts attempted armed robbery, one count burglary, and one count battery in a home invasion/robbery case.
Shields moved for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, including a misreading of the number of peremptory challenges and failure to object to prejudicial testimony.
The trial lawyer believed Shields had six peremptory challenges per side (though the statute allows nine), and exercised five; the number dispute arose from a misunderstanding of the law.
At issue is whether counsel’s miscalculation of peremptory challenges amounted to deficient performance under Strickland and whether any deficiency prejudiced the outcome.
Shields also contended that trial counsel should have objected to certain witnesses’ prior identifications and recantations that could reflect badly on Shields' character.
The Georgia Court of Appeals rejected both the defective-performance claim for the peremptory-challenges misunderstanding and the asserted prejudice, and upheld the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for misreading peremptory challenges?	Shields' trial lawyer misunderstood nine-challenge limit and used only five.	Misunderstanding did not necessarily render performance deficient; strategic decisions remain valid.	No deficient performance; misunderstanding did not affect strategy
Did the misunderstanding of peremptory challenges prejudice the defense?	Error should be presumed prejudice due to legal misreading.	Prejudice requires actual showing; no proof nine-challenge knowledge would have changed selection.	No prejudice established; record shows no as-applied impact on outcome
Was trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to recantations and explanations of prior identifications?	Counsel should have excluded or objected to witnesses’ describing prior inconsistent identifications.	Strategic choice; explanations could assist jury by providing context and credibility.	Not unreasonable; strategic decision not to object

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes ineffective-assistance standard)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (defines prejudice under Strickland and reasonable probability)
Fortson v. State, 277 Ga. 164, 587 S.E.2d 39 (2003) (prejudice from waste of peremptory challenges analyzed; predecessor to Carr)
Head v. Carr, 273 Ga. 613, 544 S.E.2d 409 (2001) (requires actual prejudice when peremptory challenges are not exhausted)
Carr, 273 Ga. 613, 544 S.E.2d 409 (2001) (exhaustion of peremptory challenges governs prejudice showing)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (conflicts-of-interest or misperceived duties require showing actual effect on trial conduct)