Opinion
A95A0555.
DECIDED JUNE 5, 1995.
Drug violation. Cobb Superior Court. Before Judge White.
Sharon L. Melcher, for appellant.
Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, Charles M. Norman, Debra H. Bernes, Nancy I. Jordan, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Ronald David Adams appeals his conviction for violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act by possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute. He contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Held:
1. When considering whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the appellate court determines the sufficiency of the evidence and does not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Grant v. State, 195 Ga. App. 463 ( 393 S.E.2d 737). Further, we do not speculate which evidence the factfinder chose to believe or disbelieve. Mills v. State, 137 Ga. App. 305, 306 ( 223 S.E.2d 498).
Considered in this manner, we find the evidence sufficient to sustain Adams' conviction under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560). Here, Adams was identified as the occupant of a house from which a confidential informant made a purchase of cocaine, and later, when a search warrant was executed, cocaine was found in the house, and some of what appeared to be cocaine was in many small bags. Considering this evidence, we conclude that the jury rationally could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Adams was guilty of the offense of which he was convicted. Id.
2. Adams contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial defense counsel failed to object to the admission of untested suspected cocaine, failed to move for curative instructions, and failed to move for a mistrial. This issue was properly presented to the trial court, and the trial court found that Adams had received effective assistance of counsel. As this finding is supported by the evidence, we affirm. Middlebrooks v. State, 208 Ga. App. 23, 24 ( 430 S.E.2d 163).
This enumeration of error is based upon the proposition that a bag containing numerous small bags of a substance that appeared to be cocaine should not have been introduced in evidence because the substance was not tested to determine what the bags contained. The transcript shows that Adams' trial defense counsel objected to the admission of this evidence, but his objection was overruled, and his objection was sufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review. Although Adams now contends his trial defense counsel should have based the objection on relevancy, we do not find that such an objection would have been well taken. As an item found pursuant to a search warrant in Adams' apparent possession, the bag of suspected cocaine was relevant. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object on this basis. Further, "[i]n the absence of testimony to the contrary, counsel's actions are presumed strategic. Stanley v. Zant, 697 F.2d 955 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1219 (1984)." Earnest v. State, 262 Ga. 494, 496-497 ( 422 S.E.2d 188). Therefore, we find that Adams was not denied effective assistance of counsel within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674).
Judgment affirmed. Johnson and Smith, JJ., concur.