Dillard, Presiding Judge. Following trial, a jury convicted Cecil Johnson on one count of rape and one count of aggravated assault with intent to rape. On appeal, Johnson contends the trial court erred in (1) finding that the jury’s verdict was not contrary to the principles of justice and equity; (2) allowing a second trial after his first trial was improperly terminated; (3) denying his challenge to one of the State’s peremptory strikes of a prospective juror; and (4) denying his claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. For the reasons set forth infra, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,[1] the record shows that early in the afternoon on July 19, 2003, 13-year-old L. C., her younger sister, and her younger cousin walked to a small, local grocery store to run an errand for a neighbor. After leaving the store and starting their walk back home, the three girls were approached by a man, who asked them for directions to Jonesboro Road. The man—who was ultimately identified as Johnson—was wearing an Atlanta Braves shirt and paint-speckled pants and shoes, and L. C.’s younger sister later recounted that he looked like a construction worker. Subsequently, although the girls pointed out the direction to Jonesboro Road for him, Johnson appeared to continue following them for several minutes as they made their way home. Nevertheless, the girls returned home without incident, and after dropping off the grocery items with their neighbor, L. C. decided to walk alone to a nearby gas station convenience store to buy something with the money her neighbor paid her. But shortly thereafter, she encountered Johnson, who once again asked for directions to Jonesboro Road. This time, L. C. agreed to walk Johnson toward his destination. And a few minutes into their walk, Johnson asked L. C. if she knew where Dobbs Elementary School was located. L. C. responded that she was unsure, but a moment later, they encountered one of L. C.’s friends, who said they were heading in the right direction. As the two approached the school, they passed by an abandoned laundromat, at which point Johnson grabbed L. C. by the throat and forced her inside the vacant building. Once there, Johnson ordered L. C. to remove her clothes and lie down on a piece of cardboard that he found on the floor. L. C. complied, at which point, Johnson removed a belt he was wearing and forced her to engage in sexual intercourse. When he finished, Johnson tried to force L. C. to smoke crack with him, but she was unable to do so. Johnson then moved L. C. to another piece of cardboard and once again forced her to have sexual intercourse, all the while threatening to hit her with a stick that he found nearby. Following this second assault, Johnson took the money from L. C. that her neighbor paid her and left the abandoned building. Once she was certain Johnson was gone, L. C. left the vacant laundromat but took a circuitous route back home out of fear that Johnson might still be in the vicinity. In the meantime, back at home, L. C.’s mother had become concerned that her daughter had yet to return from what should have been a short walk. And not long thereafter, L. C. arrived home disheveled and upset, and immediately informed her mother that she had been raped. And because she did not have a phone, L. C.’s mother went to the neighbor’s house and called her eldest son, Chris, and the police. Chris arrived at the house within ten minutes, and guessing that L. C.’s assailant could not have gone very far on foot, he asked L. C. to go with him in his car to look for the perpetrator. After searching the area for approximately twenty minutes, L. C. saw Johnson drinking from a water fountain in a park and exclaimed, “There he goes right there!” Chris parked the car, approached Johnson, and accused him of raping his sister. Johnson tried to flee, but Chris quickly caught him and forced him back to the car. He then called a friend who lived nearby, explained the situation, and asked for his help in driving the car while he detained Johnson in the back seat. Chris’s friend agreed, and all four returned to their mother’s home. Upon their return, L. C.’s younger sister noted that Johnson was the same man who asked the girls for directions earlier that afternoon. Johnson again tried to flee but he was subdued with a pair of novelty handcuffs and struck by Chris, his friend, and others in what now had become a crowd. At some point during the melee, a neighbor—the same one who sent L. C. on the errand—heard Johnson claim he did not know that L. C. was a minor and just “wanted to smoke with her.” Several minutes later, two Atlanta police officers arrived on the scene, encountering a crowd surrounding Johnson, who was handcuffed and appeared to have been badly beaten. One of the officers placed Johnson under arrest and—while patting him down—found what appeared to be a crack pipe in his pocket. Subsequently, that officer—who coincidentally also worked as a resource officer at L. C.’s school and thus knew her—took L. C. back to the abandoned laundromat so she could meet with a detective and show him where the assault occurred. As a result, investigators collected two pieces of cardboard found on the floor, a beer bottle (based on L. C.’s claim that Johnson consumed a beer in between the assaults), and a belt. L. C. then went to the hospital for an examination and collection of a rape kit. When L. C. first arrived, she was so hysterical that nurses administered a mild sedative before conducting the examination. After doing so, the examination indicated abrasions and redness to L. C.’s vaginal area that were consistent with sexual assault. In addition, the nurses and a physician observed red marks around L. C.’s neck. Thereafter, the State charged Johnson, via indictment, with rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault with intent to rape, terroristic threats, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The case initially was tried from January 31 to February 1, 2005. But after nearly a day and a half of deliberations, the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. The trial court issued an Allen charge,[2] but when the jury still could not render a verdict, the court thanked them for their service and dismissed them. The retrial began on June 26, 2005, during which the State presented the aforementioned evidence. Additionally, the State called as a witness Peter Stein, a contractor who employed Johnson on the day L. C. was assaulted. Stein testified that Johnson worked for him in the past, and on July 18, 2005, he hired him to help with the task of pumping water out of an old theater located in a shopping center not far from where the assault occurred. Stein explained that Johnson monitored the pump overnight, moving it around the floor of the theater as needed. At around 9:00 a.m. the next morning, Stein arrived to check on the work’s progress, and shortly thereafter, Johnson left to go get something to eat but stated he would return in short order. But when Johnson had not returned after an hour and a half, Stein left the theater to return the pump before incurring additional rental fees. The State also called an independent forensic chemist with experience in paint analysis, who testified that the paint found on the clothes Johnson was wearing when he was arrested could have shared a common source with paint found on the belt recovered from the floor of the abandoned laundromat. After the State rested, Johnson testified in his own defense and denied any involvement in the crime or even encountering L. C. He further claimed that, after leaving the theater, he met up with a friend who drove him to a store on Jonesboro Road, where the two bought some beer. According to Johnson, his friend then departed, and he was waiting at a bus stop when L. C.’s brother, Chris, pulled up in a car with L. C., accused him of raping his sister, and threatened him with a gun in order to force him to go to their mother’s home. Following Johnson resting his case and the State calling several rebuttal witnesses, Johnson moved for a directed verdict of acquittal as to the contributing-to-the-delinquency-of-a-minor charge, which the trial court granted. The case was then submitted to the jury, which found Johnson guilty on the charges of rape and aggravated assault with intent to rape, but not guilty on the charges of kidnapping and terroristic threats. A month after his convictions, Johnson filed a motion for new trial, and he later obtained new counsel. On April 27, 2009, nearly four years after his retrial, he filed an amended motion for new trial, which included, inter alia, claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. On July 10, 2018, nearly 13 years after his convictions and sentencing, the trial court held a hearing on his motion for new trial, during which his trial counsel testified as to her representation in both the initial trial and the retrial. The hearing concluded with the trial court taking the matter under advisement, and several months later, it issued an order denying Johnson’s motion.[3] This appeal follows. 1. Johnson contends that the trial court erred in denying the claim in his motion for new trial that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the principles of justice and equity. We disagree. Although Johnson does not argue that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, he did so in his initial motion for new trial and contends, generally, on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. Given these circumstances, including the length of time Johnson’s post-conviction rights have gone unaddressed, we would be remiss in not addressing whether the evidence was sufficient in this matter. So, we will do just that. When a criminal conviction is appealed, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence.[4] And, of course, in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we “do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.”[5] The jury’s verdict will be upheld, then, so “long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State’s case.”[6] Under former OCGA § 16-6-1 (a) (1), “[a] person commits the offense of rape when he has carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Carnal knowledge in rape occurs when there is any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.”[7] And former OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (1) provided, in pertinent part: “A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he assaults . . . [w]ith intent to murder, to rape, or to rob[.]“[8] Here, the State presented evidence that L. C. encountered Johnson twice during the same day for significant periods of time and, after walking with him for several blocks, he grabbed her by the throat, dragged her into an abandoned building, and twice forced her to engage in sexual intercourse while threatening to beat her with a stick. Johnson, nevertheless, argues that L. C.’s testimony was inconsistent and that no DNA or other physical evidence linked him to the crime. But it is the role of the jury—and not this Court—to “determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence.”[9] And the jury obviously resolved those conflicts against Johnson, which it was entitled to do.[10] Furthermore, contrary to the implication in Johnson’s argument, corroborating evidence is not required to support a rape conviction.[11] As a result, the evidence was sufficient to support Johnson’s convictions.[12] Turning now to Johnson’s more specific argument that the trial erred in failing to grant him a new trial, Georgia law provides that “[i]n any case when the verdict of a jury is found contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity, the judge presiding may grant a new trial before another jury.”[13] In addition, the presiding trial judge “may exercise sound discretion in granting or refusing new trials in cases where the verdict may be decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence even though there may appear to be some slight evidence in favor of the finding.”[14] Johnson does not contend that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion as a “thirteenth juror” under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, but rather that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the principles of justice and equity.[15] That said, a motion for new trial based on OCGA § 5-5-20, i.e., that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, addresses itself only to the discretion of the trial judge. Whether to grant a new trial based on OCGA § 5-5-21, i.e., that the verdict is strongly against the evidence, is one that is solely in the discretion of the trial court, and the appellate courts do not have the same discretion to order new trials.[16] Consequently, even when an appellant asks us to “review a trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial on the general grounds, this Court must review the case under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, supra, that is, if the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supports the verdict or verdicts.”[17] And as explained supra, the evidence the State presented at trial sufficiently supported the jury’s verdict.[18] 2. Johnson also contends that the trial court erred in allowing him to be retried after his first trial was allegedly improperly terminated, arguing that the retrial was barred by double jeopardy. Again, we disagree. The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was designed to “protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense.”[19] Indeed, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution[20] serves to “limit the Government to a single criminal proceeding to vindicate its very vital interest in enforcement of criminal laws.”[21] Consequently, after a jury is impaneled and sworn, “jeopardy attaches, and the defendant normally has a right to have [his] trial completed by that particular tribunal.”[22] Thus, if a mistrial is declared without a defendant’s consent or over his objection, the defendant may be retried “only if there was a ‘manifest necessity’ for the mistrial.”[23] But importantly, the retrial of a criminal defendant after a mistrial caused by the inability of the jury to reach a verdict “does not constitute double jeopardy [when] there is [a] manifest necessity for declaring the mistrial.”[24] Indeed, when a jury is “hopelessly deadlocked, this constitutes manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial.”[25] And the determination of whether the jury is “in fact hopelessly deadlocked is a matter somewhat in the discretion of the trial court.”[26] In this matter, after both parties rested in Johnson’s first trial, the jury began deliberating in the late afternoon, retired for the evening, and then began deliberating again the next morning. Approximately an hour and a half later, the jury informed the trial court that it could not reach a unanimous verdict, with eight guilty votes and four not guilty votes, and further added that “no one is moving.” At that point, the trial court resisted the State’s recommendation to provide an Allen charge[27] and, instead, directed the jury to “keep working.” A few hours later, the jury again informed the trial court that it had not moved off its previous eight-to-four split and did not foresee doing so. The State reiterated its request that the trial court provide an Allen charge, and the court did so. A little over an hour later, the trial court brought the jury into the courtroom and asked if they still had not reached a verdict. The foreperson confirmed that they had not, at which time the trial court stated: “All right. You have worked hard. I am sorry. I know you all are sorry, but I will excuse you. Thank you for giving this such a good, long, hard try.” Johnson now argues that the trial court never actually declared a mistrial, dismissed the jury without a showing of manifest necessity, and, therefore, his retrial should have been barred by double jeopardy; but Johnson never filed a plea in bar raising a double-jeopardy claim prior to the second trial. Consequently, his failure to do so “operates as a waiver of his subsequent challenge on double jeopardy grounds.”[28] Furthermore, consent to the grant of a mistrial can be “express or implied[.]“[29] And although Johnson did not expressly consent to what was obviously a mistrial, he impliedly consented by failing to object.[30] Moreover, Johnson’s contention that his first trial did not end in a mistrial or that a mistrial was unwarranted lacks merit. Indeed, the question of whether a jury is “‘hopelessly deadlocked,’ and thus the existence of manifest necessity for a mistrial, is within the discretion of the trial court.”[31] In fact, great deference is accorded to decisions to “grant a mistrial based on the judge’s belief that the jury cannot reach a verdict.”[32] And here, the record shows that the trial court carefully considered the jury’s progress and directed them to “keep working” after they informed the court that they had reached an impasse. Additionally, the trial court demonstrated its discretion by refusing the State’s initial request that it provide an Allen charge and, instead, allowed the jury to continue deliberating for a few more hours before issuing that charge. It was then, only after allowing more time for deliberation and the jury maintaining its eight to four deadlock with no hope for resolution, that the trial court dismissed them, acknowledging their hard work as it did so. And although the trial court did not use the specific term “mistrial” when it excused the jury, there is no indication in the record that either of the parties were confused as to what had occurred.[33] Given these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the mistrial,[34] and Johnson’s retrial was not barred by double jeopardy.[35] 3. Johnson further contends that the trial court erred in denying his challenge that one of the State’s peremptory strikes of a prospective juror was improperly based on race. Yet again, we disagree. In Batson v. Kentucky,[36] the Supreme Court of the United States held that “the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges to exclude members of the defendant’s race was a denial of equal protection.”[37] And following that decision, the appellate courts of this State have explained that [t]he evaluation of a Batson challenge involves a threestep process: (1) the opponent of a peremptory challenge must make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination; (2) the proponent of the strike must then provide a raceneutral explanation for the strike; and (3) the court must decide whether the opponent of the strike has proven discriminatory intent.[38] Furthermore, in reviewing the trial court’s disposition of a Batson challenge, we must bear in mind that “the trial court’s decision rests largely upon assessment of the [propenent's] state of mind and credibility; it therefore lies peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.”[39] Accordingly, the trial court’s findings as to “whether the opponent of the strike has met the burden of persuasion are entitled to great deference and will be affirmed unless clearly erroneous.”[40] In this matter, toward the conclusion of jury selection, Johnson challenged one of the State’s peremptory strikes, claiming that it struck prospective Juror Number 18 solely because he was an African-American. The State’s prosecutor responded that this was the only strike used on an African-American male but, nonetheless, claimed she struck him for two race-neutral reasons. First, the prosecutor stated that Juror 18 claimed he was familiar with the area where the crime occurred, and she preferred jurors to get their information from the evidence presented rather than their personal knowledge. Second, the prosecutor explained that when Johnson’s trial counsel asked Juror 18 about his encounters with law enforcement, he responded that he had several such encounters when he was “running the streets[,]” which the prosecutor interpreted as the juror having a negative opinion of the police. The trial court then heard argument from Johnson’s counsel as to why Juror 18 should not be struck, but it ultimately found that the State’s reasons were race-neutral and, thus, its strike was properly exercised. On appeal, Johnson argues that the trial court erred in denying his challenge to the State’s peremptory strike of Juror 18, positing that the State’s explanations constituted “covert discrimination.” But importantly, at the second step of a Batson challenge, “all that is required is for the proponent of the strike to provide a facially raceneutral explanation for the strike; this explanation need not be persuasive, or even plausible.”[41] This, the State did; and after which the trial court found there was no discriminatory intent. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the State lacked a discriminatory intent in exercising this peremptory strike.[42] 4. Finally, Johnson contends the trial court erred in denying his claims that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Once again, we disagree. To evaluate Johnson’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington,[43] which requires him to show that his trial counsel’s performance was “deficient and that the deficient performance so prejudiced him that there is a reasonable likelihood that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different.”[44] Importantly, should a defendant “fail to meet his burden on one prong of this twoprong test, we need not review the other prong.”[45] In addition, there is a strong presumption that trial counsel’s conduct falls within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct, and a criminal defendant must overcome this presumption.[46] In fact, the reasonableness of counsel’s conduct is “examined from counsel’s perspective at the time of trial and under the particular circumstances of the case[.]“[47] And decisions regarding trial tactics and strategy may form the basis for an ineffectiveness claim only if “they were so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would have followed such a course.”[48] Moreover, unless clearly erroneous, this Court will “uphold a trial court’s factual determinations with respect to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; however, a trial court’s legal conclusions in this regard are reviewed de novo.”[49] With these guiding principles in mind, we turn now to Johnson’s specific claims. (a) For starters, Johnson argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a plea in bar raising a double jeopardy claim prior to his retrial. But as discussed in Division 2 supra, “[r]etrial of a criminal defendant after a mistrial caused by the inability of the jury to reach a verdict does not constitute double jeopardy [when] there is manifest necessity for declaring the mistrial.”[50] And when the jury is hopelessly deadlocked, this “constitutes manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial.”[51] Consequently, any challenge by Johnson’s counsel on this ground would have been futile, and the “[f]ailure to pursue a futile motion does not constitute ineffective assistance.”[52] (b) Johnson also contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing on direct examination to elicit from him testimony that he was not wearing a belt on the day of assault and, thus, the belt recovered by the police in the abandoned laundromat—which was speckled with paint similar to his pants and boots—did not belong to him. Nonetheless, when asked about this during the hearing on his motion for new trial, Johnson’s trial counsel stated that she did not recall him telling her that he was not wearing a belt on the day of the crime, and she believed that she would have elicited such testimony if he had done so. And although Johnson, in contrast, testified during the hearing that he did inform his counsel that the belt did not belong to him, in its order denying Johnson’s motion for new trial, the trial court expressed its skepticism in this regard, noting that Johnson never denied wearing a belt when the State’s prosecutor extensively cross-examined him at trial regarding his paint-speckled clothing. Suffice it to say, the trial court was authorized to believe trial counsel’s testimony over Johnson’s testimony, and its resolution of this credibility issue was not clearly erroneous.[53] Accordingly, Johnson failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in this regard. For all these reasons, we affirm Johnson’s convictions and the denial of his motion for new trial. Judgment affirmed. Rickman C. J., and Mercier, J. concur.
