A jury found Barabbas Curtis, who testified in his own defense, guilty of three counts of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The trial court entered judgments of conviction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unreported decision. Curtis v. State , 228 Ga. App. XXVII 1997. Curtis subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court granted relief based on Curtis’ testimony that his trial attorney failed to advise him of his constitutional right not to testify at trial. The habeas court concluded as follows: While Petitioner presented no evidence that the outcome of his trial would have been different had he been so informed of his right not to testify, the lack of proper advice in this case is so ineffective that “a particularized inquiry into prejudice would be unguided speculation.” Ross v. Kemp , 260 Ga. 312, 315 393 SE2d 244 1990. The Court finds that Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel in this regard. The Warden appeals pursuant to OCGA § 9-14-52 c. 1. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a habeas petitioner must show both that his trial attorney’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance was prejudicial to his defense. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668 104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674 1984; Walker v. Houston , 277 Ga. 470 1 588 SE2d 715 2003. “In reviewing the habeas court’s order, this Court is not required to address the two elements in any particular order ‘or even to address both components if the defendant has made an insufficient showing on one.’ Cit.” Walker v. Houston , supra. We must affirm the habeas court’s determination of this claim unless “its ‘factual findings are clearly erroneous or are legally insufficient to show ineffective assistance of counsel. Cit.’ Cit.” Walker v. Houston , supra.
In evaluating the prejudice component of a claim of ineffective assistance, we apply a presumption of its existence “in only a narrow range of circumstances . . . .” State v. Heath , 277 Ga. 337 588 SE2d 738 2003. See also Owens v. State , 269 Ga. 887, 888 2 a 506 SE2d 860 1998 “The circumstances under which a court will presume prejudice are extremely limited.” After Strickland , we have identified only three instances in which the defendant would be authorized to rely upon a presumption to meet his burden of establishing prejudice: “1 an actual or constructive denial of counsel, 2 government interference with defense counsel, and 3 counsel who labors under an actual conflict of interest that adversely affects his performance. Cit.” State v. Heath , supra at 338. Only the first of these circumstances could possibly be applicable here. However, there was no actual denial of counsel, and a constructive denial is not present unless ” ‘counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing’ . . . . Cit.” State v. Heath , supra following United States v. Cronic , 466 U. S. 648, 659 104 SC 2039, 80 LE2d 657 1984. The “ attorney’s failure must be complete” and must occur throughout the proceeding and not merely at specific points. Bell v. Cone , 535 U. S. 685, 697 II 122 SC 1843, 152 LE2d 914 2002.
