A jury found Joseph Washington guilty on one count of child molestation and one count of bail jumping. Following the denial of his amended motion for new trial, Washington appeals, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective and that the trial court erred in allowing certain testimony. Having reviewed these claims, we find no error and affirm. 1. Washington enumerates as error that his “counsel was ineffective in not objecting to the victim’s testimony about an unindicted act of child molestation.”1 Under the standard of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668 104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674 1984, in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. However, in ruling on an ineffectiveness claim, this Court need not analyze the deficient performance prong if the Court determines the prejudice prong has not been satisfied. Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted. Bradley v. State , 283 Ga. 45, 46 2 656 SE2d 842 2008.
Washington was charged with three counts of child molestation. Count 1 alleged that he tried to remove the victim’s pants, Count 2 alleged that he exposed his penis to the victim, and Count 3 alleged that he touched the victim’s vagina.2 The victim, 13 years old at the time of trial, testified that Washington, her mother’s boyfriend, committed each act as alleged in the indictment. When asked whether she could remember any other incidents involving Washington, the victim stated that on one occasion, Washington tried to force her to put his penis in her mouth.
