A jury convicted Harry R. Newkirk of felony murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime in connection with the shooting death of Vipinbhai Patel.1 Newkirk contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel and the trial court violated his right to an impartial jury by a comment during a bench conference. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. The evidence presented at trial shows that Patrick Grant drove Hector Gibson, Anthony Haynes, Jonathon Johnson, and Newkirk at Newkirk’s request to a Kwik Way convenience store in Chatham County. Newkirk, Haynes, and Johnson entered the store, and Gibson followed them two to three minutes later. Gibson shot Patel, the store owner, as Patel was backing away from the counter. A customer, Tony Maxwell, saw two men run out of the store, jump into a gray Mitsubishi Montero, and speed away; one man was carrying a cash register, and another was carrying a carton of cigarettes. Maxwell called 911 and gave police the vehicle license plate number. Arriving immediately, police found Patel lying behind the counter with a gunshot wound to his chest. Other officers found the Montero abandoned a few blocks away where it had run out of gas. While patrolling the area, one officer saw Newkirk carrying a bulky object with a coat over it. Newkirk dropped the object and began running toward a wooded area. The officer chased and captured Newkirk and brought him back to the store, where Maxwell identified him as the man carrying the cash register as he ran out. Police recovered the cash register in a field near the woods; the cash register tape, cigar boxes, and cigarette packs next to the abandoned vehicle; and the murder weapon in a nearby cemetery. The firearms examiner determined that the bullet removed from Patel’s body and the spent shell casing found at his store matched the murder weapon. At trial, Haynes testified that Newkirk told Gibson to shoot Patel. In defense, Newkirk introduced Patrick Grant’s testimony from a previous trial in which Grant testified that Gibson said he shot Patel because he flinched and that Gibson did not say that anybody forced him to shoot. See Gibson v. State , 288 Ga. 617 706 SE2d 412 2011. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination of guilt, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Newkirk guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.
2. Newkirk contends he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to request a bifurcated trial on the charge alleging possession of firearm by a convicted felon, request a limiting instruction on the use of the prior felony convictions, or seek to exclude bad character evidence from Grant’s testimony. To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668, 687 104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674 1984. There is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the range of sound trial strategy and reasonable professional judgment. Id. at 689. In determining prejudice, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different, absent the specified errors. Id. at 694.
