Freddie Houston was tried before a jury in Thomas County, and found guilty of two counts of armed robbery and two additional counts of robbery. At trial, the State introduced evidence that Houston committed a robbery in Florida. Trial counsel continued to represent Houston on appeal, and he enumerated as error the trial court’s admission of the “other crimes” evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the failure of Houston’s attorney “to object to the introduction of such evidence at trial . . . waived this issue . . . . Cit.” Houston v. State , 242 Ga. App. 300, 302 1 529 SE2d 431 2000. Acting pro se, Houston filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and asserted the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel. After conducting a hearing, the habeas court granted relief, concluding that the attorney’s failure to object to evidence of the Florida robbery “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and that the “decision to not object prejudiced Houston such that this issue was not examined on appeal.” The Warden appeals from the order setting aside Houston’s convictions.
1. To prevail, Houston was required to show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance was prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668 104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674 1984. The habeas court’s determination that he made both of those showings must be affirmed, unless we conclude that its “factual findings are clearly erroneous or are legally insufficient to show ineffective assistance of counsel. Cit.” Head v. Thomason , 276 Ga. 434, 436 1 578 SE2d 426 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.” LaJara v. State , 263 Ga. 438, 440 3 435 SE2d 600 1993.
