This is the second appearance of this case before this Court. In Bridges v. State , 279 Ga. 351 613 SE2d 621 2005, we found that the evidence overwhelmingly supported Roy Bridges’ dual convictions for murder, but we remanded the case to the trial court solely to consider Bridges’ timely-raised allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. In our prior opinion, we set forth the facts of this case as follows: On December 27, 1997, the severely beaten body of Bridges’ wife, JoAnn Bridges, was found in the Whigham, Georgia, home of her mother, a butcher knife lodged in her chest. Upstairs lay the body of Bridges’ invalid mother-in-law, Christine Ulmer, her trachea cut open. Authorities soon determined the murders had occurred sometime after 10:00 p.m. the previous night. Although evidence initially indicated the murders may have been associated with a violent burglary, that theory was soon abandoned as no property appeared to be missing from the home. When asked about his whereabouts on the night of the murders, Bridges told investigators that he had been hunting near Opelika, Alabama, yet it was determined that he never checked into the hunting club where he claimed to have stayed. FN2. Bridges later conceded to investigators that he had not stayed at the hunting club, stating instead that he had stayed at an Opelika motel located near the club. Bridges told authorities that he was in Alabama from approximately 3:00 p.m. on December 26th until 5:00 a.m. on December 27th, and that he had made no phone calls on the night of the 26th. However, cell phone records revealed that shortly after 10:00 p.m. on that night, Bridges placed a cell phone call that originated within ten to twelve miles of Arlington, Georgia, which is located approximately forty miles northwest of the crime scene. On the same day the murders were discovered, Bridges asked JoAnn Bridges’ employer whether JoAnn had any financial benefits payable upon her death. Bridges later told his son-in-law that he was anxious to settle JoAnn’s estate because he “needed that money.” After his arrest and before trial, Bridges asked a cellmate to kill two potential State witnesses and/or to assist Bridges in crafting a false alibi. Moreover, investigators learned that shortly before the murders, Bridges had begun an adulterous affair with Marcy Garvin, his previous wife, whom he asked to re-marry him. Bridges also asked a female friend to stage an adulterous scene with Garvin’s husband in order to make a divorce easier to obtain-and more lucrative-for Garvin. At trial, three witnesses testified that after his arrest, Bridges told them how he had killed his wife and mother-in-law. Cooper, who was incarcerated with appellant, testified that appellant told him he had cut one of the women’s throat and had beaten the other; that he had disposed of the murder weapons in the nearby Flint River; and that he was receiving more than $200,000 in insurance proceeds due to his wife’s death. Thomas, who also was incarcerated with appellant, testified that Bridges told him he had killed his wife and mother-in-law with a “slapjack” and a knife. FN3. A “slapjack” is described in the transcript as a leather thong or strap filled with lead. Another fellow inmate, Smith, testified that Bridges told him he had planned the hunting trip as a ruse, then went to his mother-in-law’s house where JoAnn admitted him inside; that Bridges hit JoAnn in the head, then went upstairs and stabbed his mother-in-law; that Bridges had staged the scene to look like a robbery; and that Bridges would receive insurance proceeds for his wife’s death. Much of this information had not been made public by authorities at the time the witnesses learned of it. Id. at 352-353.
1. In this appeal, Bridges contends that his trial counsel were ineffective in six separate ways. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance so prejudiced the defendant that there is a reasonable likelihood that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Terry v. State , 284 Ga. 119 663 SE2d 704 2008, citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674 1984. 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. at 697 IV; Fuller v. State , 277 Ga. 505 3 591 SE2d 782 2004. 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.’ Cit.” Robinson v. State , 277 Ga. 75, 76 586 SE2d 313 2003. Rector v. State , 285 Ga. 714, 716-717 6 681 SE2d 157 2009. Furthermore,
