A jury found Eugene McClam guilty of aggravated stalking, terroristic threats, and harassing phone calls. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, McClam appeals, contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Having reviewed the record, we affirm.To show ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. There is a strong presumption that trial counsel provided effective representation and, generally, matters of reasonable trial strategy do not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. A trial court’s findings of fact on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be upheld, unless they are clearly erroneous. A reviewing court weighs the effectiveness of trial counsel’s performance from counsel’s perspective at the time of trial.Citations and punctuation omitted. Cauley v. State , 287 Ga. App. 701, 704-705 3 652 SE2d 586 2007; see Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668 104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674 1984. McClam contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the State’s notice of its intent to introduce evidence in aggravation of punishment. He argues that trial counsel should have objected because the notice was untimely and the State failed to list specifically the convictions that were to be introduced. McClam also contends that counsel failed to inform him prior to trial that the State filed the notice, and that if he had been informed prior to trial, he would have accepted the State’s plea offer. All of these arguments are without merit.
1. OCGA § 17-16-4 a 5 provides that “the prosecuting attorney shall, no later than ten days prior to trial, or at such time as the court orders but in no event later than the beginning of the trial, provide the defendant with notice of any evidence in aggravation of punishment that the state intends to introduce in sentencing.” Here, the State filed the notice five days before trial. As the notice was provided before trial, it was timely. See Copeland v. State , 269 Ga. App. 424, 424-425 1 604 SE2d 223 2004. Moreover, the State, counsel, and the court discussed McClam’s prior convictions in detail during two separate pre-trial hearings held more than 60 days before trial. Under these circumstances, trial counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to make a futile objection. See Snelson v. State , 286 Ga. App. 203, 209 4 648 SE2d 647 2007.
