After a jury trial, Appellant Milton Henry was found guilty of the malice murder of Harvey Kent, Jr. and aggravated assault against Bernice Henry. The trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment without parole for murder and a concurrent 20-year term for aggravated assault. Appellant’s motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals. 1
1. Construed in support of the verdicts, the evidence shows that Ms. Henry was Appellant’s estranged wife and that she had developed a relationship with Kent. After leaving Ms. Henry’s apartment and walking to Kent’s apartment, Appellant angrily confronted Kent about his relationship with Ms. Henry, chased him, and fatally stabbed him three times in the chest. Upon returning to Ms. Henry’s apartment, Appellant stabbed her in the head, nearly severing a portion of her ear. He subsequently bragged about his actions. Although Appellant testified that the victim had a knife and was the aggressor, the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find that Appellant did not act in self-defense and that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of malice murder and aggravated assault.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Appellant contends that the State failed to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence shows that the crimes occurred in an apartment complex located at 900 Conley Road, and that this section of Conley Road is in Fulton County.
This is not a case where a crime scene was described but its location left unspecified, or where a street address alone was offered as proof of venue without reference to a city or county. *616 [Cits.] In this case, as shown above, the crime scene was identified as being an apartment complex at a particular address.
Schofield v. State,
3. Appellant urges that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance in several respects. See
Strickland v. Washington,
Appellant complains that defense counsel failed to provide him with copies of all discovery material until the end of trial. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, Appellant’s trial attorney testified that he worked with Appellant on the file and discussed the facts with him before and during trial. Counsel’s actions were within the bounds of reasonable professional conduct.
Totten v. State,
*617
Appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to visit the crime scene so that he could determine whether it was possible for a State’s witness to have seen from her vantage point what she claimed. Counsel’s testimony shows that, in light of the prosecutor’s strong evidence and the absence of any indication that additional evidence would support the defense, he made a strategic decision not to visit the crime scene, but to attack the State’s case and to support Appellant’s self-defense testimony by using scientific evidence regarding the nature of the knife wounds. See
Boyd v. State,
Appellant also complains of his trial attorney’s failure to move for dismissal based upon the prosecutor’s alleged failure to establish venue. As discussed above, however, the State did meet its burden of proving venue beyond a reasonable doubt. “ ‘Failure to make a meritless objection cannot be evidence of ineffective assistance.’ [Cit.]”
Moore v. State,
4. Appellant further contends that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence consisting of a statement given by Ms. Henry to Detective Carl Price, to the effect that the knife which was used in both incidents did not come from her apartment. However, the State does not concede that Ms. Henry ever made that particular statement, and Appellant does not cite any portion of the record as containing such a statement. See
Willis v. State,
Moreover, during Ms. Henry’s testimony at trial, the prosecutor showed her a statement given by her to Detective Price and, after he expressed the belief that defense counsel had a copy of that statement, a bench conference followed. The record contains no indication that Appellant’s lawyer did not have a copy of the statement or that Ms. Henry ever gave any other statement to Detective Price. See
Willis v. State,
supra. “ ‘There is no
“Brady
violation where information sought becomes available to the accused at trial. (Cit.)” ’ [Cit.]”
Davis v. State,
5. Appellant also moved to suppress statements which he made to Detective Price, on the ground that they were not voluntary. After conducting a
Jackson-Denno
hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Appellant enumerates that ruling as error, but he relies solely upon his own testimony at the hearing, asserting that it was no
*618
less credible than the detective’s conflicting testimony. The trial court itself “was entitled to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and to believe the [detective] instead of [Appellant] and, thus, the trial court’s finding that the statement [s] [were] voluntary is not clearly erroneous. [Cits.]”
Jackson v. State,
6. Although Appellant does not enumerate any error with respect to the sentences, we recognize that OCGA § 17-10-7 (b) authorized the trial court to impose life imprisonment without parole for the murder, so long as Appellant was previously convicted of a “serious violent felony” as defined in OCGA § 17-10-6.1 (a). See
Ortiz v. State,
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
The crimes occurred on May 25, 1997, and the grand jury indicted Henry on October 18, 1997. The jury returned the guilty verdicts on March 3, 1998, and Henry filed a motion for new trial prematurely on March 13, 1998.
Sparks v. State,