Demetrius Smith was jointly indicted with Ray Anderson and Milton Jones for two counts each of armed robbery and aggravated assault with intent to rob, and one count each of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. A separate count charged Smith alone with trafficking in cocaine. A jury convicted Smith of the aggravated assault with intent to rob charges and the charge for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, but acquitted him of the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced Smith to 45 years, with 35 to be served in confinement and the remainder on probation. On appeal from the denial of his amended motion for new trial, Smith contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to support the jury’s verdict, the record reflects that on September 7, 2005, Dennis Suttles’s vehicle broke down at the intersection of McDaniel and Fulton Streets in Atlanta. While Suttles and his friend, Sterling Allen, waited for a tow truck, a white Chevrolet Blazer containing three males pulled up. The men jumped out of the vehicle, pointed a gun at Suttles and Allen, demanded that they empty their pockets, and then fled with approximately $250 in cash and the victims’ cell phones. City of Atlanta Police Detective Stephen O’Hare happened to be driving in the area when Suttles flagged him down and advised that he had been robbed by several men in a white Chevrolet Blazer. O’Hare located the Blazer and then chased it for a short time before the vehicle pulled over and Anderson and Smith jumped out and fled on foot.1 O’Hare pursued Smith on foot and arrested him in an abandoned house. Officers discovered a gun lying next to the Blazer and recovered two cell phones and Suttles’s cash. At trial, O’Hare testified that Suttles and Allen identified Smith, Jones, and Anderson at the scene as the men who robbed them. O’Hare also identified Smith in court as the man he chased from the Blazer. Once in custody, Smith waived his Miranda rights and confessed to pointing a gun at Suttles and Allen. At trial, Suttles and Allen could not recall many details of the crime; they claimed that they had never identified anyone at the scene and disputed their statements to police. They also could not identify any of the perpetrators at trial.2 Suttles and Allen also testified that prior to trial, they went to defense attorney Dennis Scheib’s office and signed a document indicating that they did not want to press charges.
In his sole enumeration of error, Smith contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. In order to prove his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Smith must establish both prongs of the test set out in Strickland v. Washington :3 1 that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient and 2 that counsel’s inadequate performance so prejudiced his defense that a reasonable probability exists that the result of the trial would have been different but for that deficiency.4 “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”5 Failure to satisfy either prong of the two-part Strickland test is fatal to an ineffective assistance claim.6 “A trial court’s finding that a defendant has been afforded effective assistance of counsel will be affirmed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.”7 We conduct a de novo review of the lower court’s legal conclusions.8
