Victor Hardeman was tried before a jury and convicted of kidnapping with bodily injury, aggravated battery, false imprisonment, criminal attempt to commit robbery, and burglary. Kidnapping with bodily injury is a capital offense, so defense counsel was entitled to a two-hour closing argument in accordance with OCGA § 17-8-73. However, he did not object when the trial court limited his argument to only one hour. On motion for new trial, several issues were raised, including an ineffectiveness claim based upon Hardeman’s trial attorney’s failure to object to the erroneous limitation placed on the length of closing argument. As to that issue, trial counsel testified that he “could have used more time,” but he did not elaborate on how he would have used it. The trial court denied the motion for new trial and, on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in an opinion which was not officially reported. Hardeman v. State , 275 Ga. App. XXVI 2005. With regard to the assertion of ineffectiveness, the Court of Appeals held that Hardeman failed to prove that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s abridgement of his right to an additional hour of argument. Hardeman applied for certiorari, which we granted to review the Court of Appeals’ holding that there was no showing of prejudice resulting from trial counsel’s acquiescence in the trial court’s erroneous limitation on the length of closing argument. To prevail on an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant must show that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that, but for the deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability the trial would have ended differently. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668 104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674 1984. “On appeal, ‘we accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts. Cits.’ Cit.” Morris v. State , 280 Ga. 179, 180 3 626 SE2d 123 2006.
With regard to the deficiency prong, Hardeman must show that his trial lawyer “made errors so serious that he or she was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed . . . by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland v. Washington , supra at 687 III. Included among the factors for assessing professional performance are whether trial counsel “adequately investigated the facts and the law; and . . . whether the omissions charged to him or her resulted from inadequate preparation rather than from unwise choices of trial tactics and strategy. Cit.” Johnson v. Zant , 249 Ga. 812, 813 1 295 SE2d 63 1982.
