Following a jury trial, Daniel Eric Cobble was convicted on one count of family violencе battery and on one count of simple battery. On appeal he contends that (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain the convictions, (2) the trial court erred in allоwing improper character evidence to be presented at trial, (3) the trial court erred in failing to merge certain counts relating to family violence battery, and (4) his trial counsel was ineffective. We discern no error and affirm.
Viewed in the light most fayorable to the verdict, the evidence reveals that Cobble went to his mother’s house one evening, and his mother informed him that he could not stay with • her. Cobble *237 departed and then returned minutеs later and kicked in the door of his mother’s home. Cobble then threw a set of keys at his mother, which hit her in the face and shoulder, spat in her fac'e, violently grabbed and pulled out hеr hair, which left her head bloody, and tried to hit her.
The mother’s live-in boyfriend attempted to intervene to break up the fight between Cobble and his mother. Cobble then hit the boyfriend, causing him to bleed above his eye. Cobble’s mother was eventually able to subdue Cobble by holding him down on the floor, and the boyfriend then called 911. Police took Cobble from the scene and arrested him.
1. Cobble contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviсtions. We disagree.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidenсe in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the prеsumption of innocence.
Short v. State,
Here, both victims testified regarding Cobble’s physical attacks against them. Cobble’s mother testified regаrding Cobble’s aggressive attack against her with car keys and by pulling out her hair (leaving her head bloody). The mother’s boyfriend testified that Cobble threw the first punch when the boyfriend attemptеd to break up the fight between Cobble and his mother and that, the punch caused the boyfriend to bleed. The evidence was sufficient to show lack of justification and to sustain Cobblе’s convictions for family violence battery as to the mother and simple battery with respect to the mother’s boyfriend. See OCGA §§ 16-5-23 (a) (2); 16-5-23.1 (f).
2. Cobble contends that the trial court erred by admitting allegedly improper character evidence at trial. However, the record reveals that Cobble made no objection at trial to this alleged character evidence, leaving nothing for this Court to review on appeal. See
Hehir v. State,
3. Cobble аrgues that the trial court erred by failing to make clear that the three other battery сounts against him relating to his mother merged at sentencing with the one count against him for family violence battery. We find no merit to this contention, because, despite the fact that the jury found Cobble guilty on all four counts of battery relating to his mother, the record is cleаr that he was only
sentenced
on the one count of family violence battery in relation to thesе charges.
See Zachery v. State,
4. Cobblе argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to alleged chárаcter evidence at trial. Instead of offering evidence to show his counsel’s ineffectiveness, however, Cobble contends that such ineffectiveness is shown because “[t]he State offered no evidence of any reason for counsel’s failure to objеct, a burden that it bore once Mr. Cobble made a prima facie case for inеffective assistance as outlined in his motion.”
Cobble’s attempt to shift to the State his burden of proving ineffective assistance is without basis. To prove ineffective assistance,
Cobble
bore the burden of showing that counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficient performance prejudiced his defense.
Ellison v. State,
Judgment affirmed.