Strickland test in Georgia

2025If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong. 20 Moss v. State, 311 Ga. 123, 126 (2) (856 SE2d 280) (2021) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-695; other citations and punctuation omitted).

2025If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong. 20 Moss v. State, 311 Ga. 123, 126 (2) (856 SE2d 280) (2021) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-695; other citations and punctuation omitted).

2026“If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong.” Id. (a) McFarland argues that his defense counsel was defi- cient in that he did not object to testimony from the State’s gang expert regarding a “highly prejudicial and irrelevant” 2018 mur- der.

2026“If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong.” Id. (a) McFarland argues that his defense counsel was defi- cient in that he did not object to testimony from the State’s gang expert regarding a “highly prejudicial and irrelevant” 2018 mur- der.

2020Finally, “[i]f [Henderson] fails to meet either prong of the Strickland test, it is not incumbent upon this Court to examine the other prong.” Green v. State, 291 Ga. 579, 580 (2) ( 731 SE2d 359 ) (2012). (a) Failing to File a Timely Statutory Demand for Speedy Trial.

2020Finally, “[i]f [Henderson] fails to meet either prong of the Strickland test, it is not incumbent upon this Court to examine the other prong.” Green v. State, 291 Ga. 579, 580 (2) ( 731 SE2d 359 ) (2012). (a) Failing to File a Timely Statutory Demand for Speedy Trial.

2023A defendant’s failure “to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is sufficient to defeat a claim of ineffective assistance, and it is not incumbent upon this Court to examine the other prong.” Smith v. State, 296 Ga. 731, 733 (2) (770 SE2d 610) (2015).

2023A defendant’s failure “to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is sufficient to defeat a claim of ineffective assistance, and it is not incumbent upon this Court to examine the other prong.” Smith v. State, 296 Ga. 731, 733 (2) (770 SE2d 610) (2015).

2021Doyle, P. J., and Brown, J., concur. 15 Browning v. State, 283 Ga. 528, 530-531 (2) (a) ( 661 SE2d 552 ) (2008). 16 See Battles v. State, 290 Ga. 226, 229 (2) ( 719 SE2d 423 ) (2011) (“If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, it is not incumbent upon the reviewing court to examine the other prong.”). 9

2021Doyle, P. J., and Brown, J., concur. 15 Browning v. State, 283 Ga. 528, 530-531 (2) (a) ( 661 SE2d 552 ) (2008). 16 See Battles v. State, 290 Ga. 226, 229 (2) ( 719 SE2d 423 ) (2011) (“If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, it is not incumbent upon the reviewing court to examine the other prong.”). 9

2014The reasonableness of the conduct is viewed at the time of trial and under the circumstances of the case.”21 If an appellant fails to meet his burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court need not examine the other prong.22 In reviewing the trial court’s decision, “[w]e accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.”23 20 See id. at 687-688, 694 (III) (A)-(B). 21 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 853, 857 (6) ( 596 SE2d 597

2014The reasonableness of the conduct is viewed at the time of trial and under the circumstances of the case.”21 If an appellant fails to meet his burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court need not examine the other prong.22 In reviewing the trial court’s decision, “[w]e accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.”23 20 See id. at 687-688, 694 (III) (A)-(B). 21 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 853, 857 (6) ( 596 SE2d 597

2008Brewer v. State, 224 Ga. App. 656, 657-658 (2) ( 481 SE2d 608 ) (1997).

2008Brewer v. State, 224 Ga. App. 656, 657-658 (2) ( 481 SE2d 608 ) (1997).

2021Wright v. State, 291 Ga. 869, 870 (2) ( 734 SE2d 876 ) (2012) (“If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong.”).

2021Wright v. State, 291 Ga. 869, 870 (2) ( 734 SE2d 876 ) (2012) (“If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong.”).

2019See Propst v. State, 299 Ga. 557 , 565 (3), 788 S.E.2d 484 (2016) ("If the defendant fails to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test, this Court is not required to examine the other."), overruled in part on other grounds, Worthen v. State , 304 Ga. 862 , 823 S.E.2d 291 (2019).

2019See Propst v. State, 299 Ga. 557 , 565 (3), 788 S.E.2d 484 (2016) ("If the defendant fails to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test, this Court is not required to examine the other."), overruled in part on other grounds, Worthen v. State , 304 Ga. 862 , 823 S.E.2d 291 (2019).

2024See Palmer v. State, 303 Ga. 810, 816 (IV) (814 SE2d 718) (2018).

2024See Palmer v. State, 303 Ga. 810, 816 (IV) (814 SE2d 718) (2018).

2024See Palmer v. State, 303 Ga. 810, 816 (IV) (814 SE2d 718) (2018).

2024See Palmer v. State, 303 Ga. 810, 816 (IV) (814 SE2d 718) (2018).

2019We reversed both of those conclusions in our previous opinion. 4 outcome of the trial would have been different.[14] The criminal defendant must overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel’s conduct falls within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct. [As the appellate court, we] accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.15 Both prongs of the Strickland test need not be proven if the defendant fails to prove either one.16 To meet the burden of proving trial c

2019We reversed both of those conclusions in our previous opinion. 4 outcome of the trial would have been different.[14] The criminal defendant must overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel’s conduct falls within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct. [As the appellate court, we] accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.15 Both prongs of the Strickland test need not be proven if the defendant fails to prove either one.16 To meet the burden of proving trial c

2018"If the defendant fails to satisfy either the 'deficient performance' or the 'prejudice' prong of the Strickland test, this Court is not required to examine the other." Capps , 300 Ga. at 8 (2), 792 S.E.2d 665 (citation omitted). (a) In Smith's appeal, we rejected his claim that the trial court erred when, after the evidence was closed, it removed one of the jurors due to his violation of the court's instruction not to do any independent investigation and due to the court's concerns about the juror's impartiality given a business relationship with Smith's attorney.

2018"If the defendant fails to satisfy either the 'deficient performance' or the 'prejudice' prong of the Strickland test, this Court is not required to examine the other." Capps , 300 Ga. at 8 (2), 792 S.E.2d 665 (citation omitted). (a) In Smith's appeal, we rejected his claim that the trial court erred when, after the evidence was closed, it removed one of the jurors due to his violation of the court's instruction not to do any independent investigation and due to the court's concerns about the juror's impartiality given a business relationship with Smith's attorney.

1999Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). [Willingham] must establish both the performance and the prejudice components of the Strickland test.” Johnson v. State, 222 Ga. App. 722, 728 (9) ( 475 SE2d 918 ) (1996).

1999Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). [Willingham] must establish both the performance and the prejudice components of the Strickland test.” Johnson v. State, 222 Ga. App. 722, 728 (9) ( 475 SE2d 918 ) (1996).

2024“If [a defendant] fails to make a sufficient showing on one part of the Strickland test, we need not address the other part.” Id.

2024“If [a defendant] fails to make a sufficient showing on one part of the Strickland test, we need not address the other part.” Id.

2024See DeLoach v. State, 308 Ga. 283, 287-288 (2) (840 SE2d 396) (2020). (a) Vendrel contends that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel when trial counsel failed to interview the defense witnesses before trial, which Vendrel says resulted in his counsel inadvertently eliciting testimony on direct examination 17 about the volatile nature of Vendrel’s relationship with Saffles.

2024See DeLoach v. State, 308 Ga. 283, 287-288 (2) (840 SE2d 396) (2020). (a) Vendrel contends that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel when trial counsel failed to interview the defense witnesses before trial, which Vendrel says resulted in his counsel inadvertently eliciting testimony on direct examination 17 about the volatile nature of Vendrel’s relationship with Saffles.

2013“If an appellant fails to meet his burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong.” (Citations omitted.) Kendrick v. State, 290 Ga. 873, 877 (4) ( 725 SE2d 296 ) (2012).

2013“If an appellant fails to meet his burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong.” (Citations omitted.) Kendrick v. State, 290 Ga. 873, 877 (4) ( 725 SE2d 296 ) (2012).

2022“If [Fuller] cannot meet his burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, then we need not examine the other prong.” Causey v. State, 319 Ga. App. 841, 842 ( 738 SE2d 672 ) (2013).

2022“If [Fuller] cannot meet his burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, then we need not examine the other prong.” Causey v. State, 319 Ga. App. 841, 842 ( 738 SE2d 672 ) (2013).

2026“If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong.” Taylor v. State, 315 Ga. 630, 647 (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2026“If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong.” Taylor v. State, 315 Ga. 630, 647 (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2019And "prejudice is demonstrated only where there is a reasonable probability that, absent counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different." Id."Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is sufficient to defeat a *315 claim of ineffective assistance, and it is not incumbent upon this Court to examine the other prong." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 818 (2), 809 S.E.2d 738 .

2019And "prejudice is demonstrated only where there is a reasonable probability that, absent counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different." Id."Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test is sufficient to defeat a *315 claim of ineffective assistance, and it is not incumbent upon this Court to examine the other prong." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 818 (2), 809 S.E.2d 738 .

2014If an appellant fails to meet his burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong. 10 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Harrison v. State, 313 Ga. App. 861, 865 (3) ( 722 SE2d 774 ) (2012).

2014If an appellant fails to meet his burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong. 10 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Harrison v. State, 313 Ga. App. 861, 865 (3) ( 722 SE2d 774 ) (2012).

2012See Martinez v. State, 303 Ga. App. 166, 172 (4) ( 692 SE2d 766 ) (2010) (“If the defendant cannot satisfy either of the two prongs of the Strickland test, his ineffective assistance claim fails.”) (citation omitted). (b) Flemister next asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the lieutenant’s testimony that the residence appeared to be a “smokehouse” where people would buy drugs and stay to consume them.

2012See Martinez v. State, 303 Ga. App. 166, 172 (4) ( 692 SE2d 766 ) (2010) (“If the defendant cannot satisfy either of the two prongs of the Strickland test, his ineffective assistance claim fails.”) (citation omitted). (b) Flemister next asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the lieutenant’s testimony that the residence appeared to be a “smokehouse” where people would buy drugs and stay to consume them.

2013(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Philpot v. State, 311 Ga. App. 486, 488-489 (3) ( 716 SE2d 551 ) (2011).

2013(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Philpot v. State, 311 Ga. App. 486, 488-489 (3) ( 716 SE2d 551 ) (2011).

2014The reasonableness of the conduct is viewed at the time of trial and under the circumstances of the case.”21 If an appellant fails to meet his burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court need not examine the other prong.22 In reviewing the trial court’s decision, “[w]e accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.”23 20 See id. at 687-688, 694 (III) (A)-(B). 21 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 853, 857 (6) ( 596 SE2d 597

2014The reasonableness of the conduct is viewed at the time of trial and under the circumstances of the case.”21 If an appellant fails to meet his burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court need not examine the other prong.22 In reviewing the trial court’s decision, “[w]e accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.”23 20 See id. at 687-688, 694 (III) (A)-(B). 21 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 277 Ga. 853, 857 (6) ( 596 SE2d 597

2026See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 ( 104 SCt 2039 , 80 LE2d 657) (1984).” Wainwright, 305 Ga. at 68 (3). 5 As to the “constructive denial of counsel” discussed in Cronic, the Georgia Supreme Court has explained as follows: Cronic’s “constructive denial of counsel” exception to the general Strickland standard is a “narrow” one that applies only when “‘there was a breakdown in the adversarial process,’ such that ‘counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.’” Charleston v. State, 292 Ga. 678, 682-683 ( 743 SE2d 1 ) (2013) (quoting Cronic

2026See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 ( 104 SCt 2039 , 80 LE2d 657) (1984).” Wainwright, 305 Ga. at 68 (3). 5 As to the “constructive denial of counsel” discussed in Cronic, the Georgia Supreme Court has explained as follows: Cronic’s “constructive denial of counsel” exception to the general Strickland standard is a “narrow” one that applies only when “‘there was a breakdown in the adversarial process,’ such that ‘counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.’” Charleston v. State, 292 Ga. 678, 682-683 ( 743 SE2d 1 ) (2013) (quoting Cronic

2024“If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong.” Id. (citation and punctuation omitted). (a) White contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance on the grounds that he did not interview Schullerman 52 after his guilty-plea hearing and before White’s trial, and also did not subpoena and call Schullerman as a witness at trial.

2024“If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong.” Id. (citation and punctuation omitted). (a) White contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance on the grounds that he did not interview Schullerman 52 after his guilty-plea hearing and before White’s trial, and also did not subpoena and call Schullerman as a witness at trial.