ELLINGTON, P. J., ANDREWS and RICKMAN, JJ.
ELLINGTON, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Dekalb County jury found Clinton Mallery guilty of armed
robbery, OCGA § 16-8-41 (a); and aggravated assault,
OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2). Mallery appeals from the order
denying his motion for a new trial, contending that his trial
counsel was ineffective. Finding no reversible error, we
in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict,
record shows the following. The victim, known by her
neighbors as "the candy lady, " sold candy, sodas,
tobacco, and other sundry items from her DeKalb County
apartment. The victim knew Mallery by his street name,
"Fly, " was familiar with him from the
neighborhood, and had sold him candy and tobacco on several
occasions. She had also driven him and his girlfriend to the
store once. The victim's husband also knew Mallery and
had tried to help him find a job. The victim's husband
testified that Mallery was aware that he owned a handgun.
6:30 p.m. on July 18, 2012, while the victim's husband
was at work, Mallery knocked at the victim's apartment
door. When the victim opened the door, Mallery asked her for
a cigarette. As the victim turned away to get the cigarette,
Mallery and an accomplice forced their way inside the
apartment. Mallery pointed a handgun at the victim's head
and ordered her to lie down on the floor. The accomplice
asked the victim if she had a gun and, when the victim said
no, the accomplice said: "She's lying. Murk that
robbery was briefly interrupted by a knock at the
victim's door. The victim heard a child outside asking to
buy something. The accomplice told the victim to say that she
was closed, and she complied. When the child left, Mallery
struck the victim's head with his gun, causing her to
momentarily lose consciousness. When she awakened, she was
lying on her bedroom floor. The accomplice was gone, but
Mallery stood in the doorway. He shot the victim in the head,
causing her to lose consciousness again. Then he shot her
four more times, in the neck, chest, abdomen, and hand.
Mallery and his accomplice stole the victim's cash,
purse, laptop computer, cell phone, and the victim's
after Mallery left, the victim regained consciousness and
stumbled from her home to her next-door neighbor's
apartment. She knocked on his door and collapsed into his
arms when he opened the door. The victim told her neighbor
that she had been robbed. The neighbor called 911 and,
shortly thereafter, emergency personnel took the victim to
the hospital. The neighbor testified that, about six or seven
minutes before the victim came over, he had heard two male
voices outside the victim's apartment door and then he
heard a loud disturbance.
the victim was being prepared for surgery, she told the
police that "Fly" had shot her, that she knew him
and his girlfriend from the neighborhood, and that she had
Fly's girlfriend's phone number at home. After she
had recovered sufficiently from her surgery, the victim gave
the police a more detailed account of the robbery and of Fly,
describing his height, build, hairstyle, clothing, arm and
facial tattoos, and lip piercings. Later, after their
investigation had led them to two possible suspects, the
police showed the victim two different photographic arrays,
the second of which contained Mallery's photograph. The
victim did not identify anyone from the first array; but,
when the police showed her the second array, she immediately
pointed to Mallery's photograph. Mallery was later
arrested in Mississippi on a fugitive warrant. The victim
also identified Mallery at trial as the man who had robbed
and shot her.
testified in his own defense, contending that the victim had
been involved in a fraudulent scheme to sell iPhones
purchased under stolen identities and that she had
intentionally misidentified him as the shooter to protect
herself from the more dangerous person who had actually shot
contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for
a new trial. He argues that his trial counsel's
performance was deficient in four respects and that, given
the cumulative and prejudicial effect of those deficiencies,
he is entitled to a new trial on ineffective assistance of
establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
show that his counsel's performance was professionally
deficient and that, but for such deficient performance, there
is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial
would have been different. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d
When assessing prejudice, a court must consider the totality
of the evidence before the judge or jury. A verdict or
conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely
to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming
record support. Moreover, in weighing prejudice, [a
defendant] is entitled to relief if any one error of trial
counsel shows that there is a reasonable probability that the
outcome of the trial would have been more favorable to him or
if the collective prejudice from all of trial counsel's
deficiencies meets that standard.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Daughtry v.
State, 296 Ga. 849, 853 (2) (770 S.E.2d 862) (2015).
the defendant fails to satisfy either prong of the
Strickland test, this Court is not required to
examine the other." (Citation omitted.) Propst v.
State, 299 Ga. 557, 565 (3) (788 S.E.2d 484) (2016).
"In reviewing the trial court's decision, we accept
the trial court's factual findings and credibility
determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently
apply the legal principles to the facts." (Citation and
punctuation omitted.) Wright v. State, 291 Ga. 869,
870 (2) (734 ...