Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; Whether the decision not to offer evidence of defendant’s herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) status was objectively unreasonable

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. He was convicted of multiple counts of CSC I and II for repeatedly sexually abusing the victim, who was under 13. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of his and the victim’s differing HSV-2 statuses. “Trial counsel weighed the pros and cons of offering the HSV-2 evidence and concluded it would do more harm than good, and this Court ‘does not second-guess counsel on matters of trial strategy . . . .’” Defendant failed “to show trial counsel’s decision to not offer evidence of his HSV-2 status was objectively unreasonable considering the evidence and strategy employed at trial. Because this decision was not objectively unreasonable, defendant has failed to show trial counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective.” Affirmed.