Defendant Scapin appeals her conviction of the offenses of failure to maintain lane and driving under the influence of alcohol. The sole enumeration of error contends the trial court erred in failing to grant defendant’s motion for new trial and motion to set aside verdict because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Held:
“Georgia has adopted the two part test for effectiveness set forth in
Strickland v. Washington,
Defendant contends that she had a viable defense which was not presented due to the failure of trial counsel to conduct a proper investigation. Trial counsel was informed by defendant that she had a heart condition and that her physician, Dr. Taylor, could testify as to that condition. Dr. Taylor’s affidavit states that defendant has a condition of the heart, supra ventricular palpitations, which could result in erratic muscle movement and cause emotional liabilities causing defendant to appear to be intoxicated or uncoordinated. Defendant contends this medical evidence could have been used to explain her appearance at the time of the offenses.
While trial counsel did not consult or interview Dr. Taylor, there is no indication in the record on appeal as to whether this reflects some deficiency on the part of trial counsel or manifested a tactical decision. For example, trial counsel may have been reluctant to introduce evidence which by seeking to explain defendant’s appearance may have afforded credence to any State’s evidence that she did appear to be intoxicated. Tactical decisions are the exclusive province of the lawyer after consultation with his client.
Pitts v. Glass,
When there is nothing in the record to support the contention of error, there is nothing presented for appellate review.
Singleton v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
