Rico Robinson was convicted of the malice murder of Quentin Domineck, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. This Court affirmed Robinson’s convictions in Robinson v. State , 275 Ga. 143 561 SE2d 823 2002, but remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on Robinson’s claim of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Id. at 145 4. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court rejected the claim of ineffectiveness and denied Robinson a new trial. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. Robinson has the burden of demonstrating that his trial attorney was ineffective in representing him. “In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance so prejudiced the client that there is a reasonable likelihood that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668 104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674 1984; Smith v. Francis , 253 Ga. 782 1 325 SE2d 362 1985. The criminal defendant must overcome the strong presumption that trial counsel’s conduct falls within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct. Mobley v. State , 271 Ga. 577 523 SE2d 9 1999.” Potter v. State , 273 Ga. 325 540 SE2d 184 2001. “We accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.” Suggs v. State , 272 Ga. 85, 88 4 526 SE2d 347 2000. In denying Robinson relief, the trial court stated that there was no showing that the verdict would have differed if trial counsel had proceeded differently, that trial counsel was effective in her defense of Robinson, and that some of trial counsel’s actions were strategic in nature.
1. Robinson first contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to object to the exclusion of evidence of prior violent acts by the victim against him on the basis that it violated Robinson’s right under the Federal Constitution to present a defense. But such an objection would have been of no moment.
