State v. Wofford, 321 Ga. App. 249

Wofford was charged with five sexual offenses against his girlfriend’s two daughters, V. H. and O. H., and was convicted on four counts after a jury trial.
The four convictions included aggravated child molestation and related acts; rape was found not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Wofford moved for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not calling certain impeachment witnesses (two former teachers of V. H.).
The trial court granted the new trial, finding deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington; the State appealed.
On direct appeal, the reviewing court reversed the new-trial order, holding trial counsel’s performance was not deficient and there was no prejudice.
The court discussed trial strategy, witness credibility defenses, and the lack of prior notice to counsel about the two potential impeachment witnesses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not calling two impeachment witnesses	Wofford	Wofford	Trial counsel's performance not deficient; no reversible error

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Payne v. State, 289 Ga. 691 (Ga. 2011) (trial strategy and cross-examination decisions are tactical)
Washington v. State, 276 Ga. 655 (Ga. 2003) (manner of attacking witness credibility is trial tactic)
Pickard v. State, 302 Ga. App. 483 (Ga. App. 2010) (impeachment and witness credibility strategies)
Martin v. State, 281 Ga. 778 (Ga. 2007) (trial strategy and impeachment considerations)