In 2008, a jury found appellant Christopher Rozier and his co-defendant, Xavier Dyer, guilty of murder and other crimes in connection with the death of Rufus Richardson. They appealed, and we affirmed both of their convictions. See Dyer v. State,
1. “To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a habeas petitioner must show that his appellate counsel was deficient in failing to raise an issue on appeal and that, if counsel had raised that issue, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the appeal would have been different,.” Thompson v. Brown,
address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one. In particular, a court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel’s performance. If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.
Strickland v. Washington,
Moreover, even though the trial court ruled against appellant’s ineffectiveness claim based solely on the ground that appellant failed to show that appellate counsel’s performance was deficient, this Court may resolve appellant’s ineffective assistance claim on the ground that he failed to show prejudice. See Barrett v. State,
2. At trial, a fingerprint examiner from the GBI testified that he found appellant’s fingerprints on the shotgun that was used to commit a “similar transaction” about a month before the victim’s murder. See Dyer,
We conclude, however, that even if appellate counsel had raised this ineffectiveness issue on appeal, there is not a reasonable probability that the outcome of the appeal would have been different,. Three witnesses testified that the shotgun in question belonged to appellant; two of those witnesses testified that appellant threatened them with that shotgun; the shotgun, contrary to appellant’s contention in this appeal, was not the murder weapon; the murder weapon was a 9mm handgun; and the 9mm shell casings found around the victim’s body were fired from the same 9mm handgun that fired the shell casings that the police found in appellant’s yard. To prevail on the claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the fingerprint cards, appellate counsel would have had to show that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different, if trial counsel had objected. However, based on the evidence summarized above and other evidence introduced against appellant at trial, see Dyer,
3. Appellant contends that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to sufficiently explore the potential bias of Liberty Harris.
At the time of trial, Harris had been convicted of three felonies and was under indictment for the murder of the victim in this case. “Harris testified for the State pursuant to an immunity agreement, and, although the State had offered her a plea deal of ten years, Harris ... rejected the deal.” Dyer,
For purposes of this claim, we assume that it would have been error for the trial court to not allow trial counsel to cross-examine Harris about the possibility of recidivist punishment and that trial counsel performed deficiently in not pursuing that line of cross-examination. But see Jackson v. State,
Having presumed deficient performance, we turn to the prejudice component of appellant’s claim. In this regard, we conclude that appellant has failed to show that appellate counsel could have prevailed on a claim that trial counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced
4. Appellant contends that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to contend on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to testimony that he alleges invaded the province of the jury
On cross-examination of a GBI agent, Dyer’s counsel asked the agent if he believed that Harris’s pretrial statements to him were true. He said yes, “[o]n some matters . . . I’ve interviewed a lot of people and I believe that she was telling the truth as it pertains to [Dyer and Rozier].” Appellant’s trial counsel did not object to this testimony. Appellant now contends that this testimony improperly invaded the province of the jury, that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to object to it, and that appellate counsel was ineffective in not raising this claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on appeal.
The GBI agent’s testimony was subject to an improper bolstering objection, see Jones v. State,
To begin, as explained above, the evidence against appellant was extremely strong, if not overwhelming, and Harris was by no means the only source of that evidence. See Dyer,
Judgment affirmed.