Allowing the State's Attorney to Argue Defendant's Lack of Remorse
In Isaacs v. State, 259 Ga. 717, 723 (9) (386 S.E.2d 316) the Supreme Court of Georgia pointed out that "the defendant's remorse or lack thereof is a permissible area of inquiry during sentencing."
Error does not result upon allowing a jury to infer lack of remorse from the failure to admit guilt. High v. Zant, 250 Ga. 693, 701 (14) (300 S.E.2d 654)
Even were this not the case, the superior court is presumed to know the law. Cox v. City of Lawrenceville, 168 Ga. App. 119 at 119-120 (1) (308 S.E.2d 224) ("Absent a showing to the contrary, the proceedings in the trial court are presumed to have been conducted in a regular and legal manner.").
And inasmuch as the superior court sentenced defendant to less than the maximum permissible punishment, there is no indication of prejudice in any event.