Nesbit v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Nesbit’s convictions, rejecting both claims that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court held that a defense of habitation was unavailable because no evidence showed that the victim or passenger entered or attempted to enter Nesbit’s vehicle, and counsel reasonably pursued self-defense instead. The court also held that counsel’s decision not to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument was a reasonable tactical choice because the argument responded to defense counsel’s remarks and was not improper.