A jury fоund 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 dеcision. Curtis v. State, 228 Ga. App. XXVII (1997). Curtis subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court granted rеlief 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 [P] etitioner 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 аdvice 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).
*699
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,
In evaluating the prejudice component of a claim of ineffective assistance, we apply a presumptiоn of its existence “in only a narrow range of circumstances. . . .”
State v. Heath,
Ross v. Kemp,
supra at 315, met this strenuous test, even though it was decided long before
Bell
and relied on an Eleventh Circuit decision which preceded both
Strickland
and
Cronic. Ross
was a particularly egregious case in which this Court presumed prejudice based on the presentation of mutually exclusive defenses by two attorneys and the placement of the defendant on the stand with no preparation whatsoever.
Owens v. State,
supra at 888 (2) (a), fn. 4. See also
Cochran v. State,
However, Georgia appellate courts have consistently required that, where a defendant alleges that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by preventing him from testifying, he must show that this action actually prejudiced his defense such that, had he testifiеd, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different.
Chambers v. State,
Therefore, “the habeas court relied on an erroneous legal standard for determining рrejudice.” Walker v. Houston, supra at 472 (1). Curtis was required to show at least what his trial testimony actually was, just as a defendant who alleges that counsel prevented him from testifying must “show what his testimony would have been.” Kinney v. State, supra at 738 (7) (d). The trial transcript is not in the record and, as the habeas court correctly found, Curtis “presented no evidence that thе outcome of his trial would have been different had he been ... informed of his right not to testify.” Therefore, on thе record before the habeas court, it is “impossible to determine if the outcome of the trial was аffected. [Cit.]” Kinney v. State, supra. Thus, a remand to consider the prejudice prong of Strickland is unnecessary and inappropriate. Compare State v. Heath, supra at 339. The record contains no evidence to support the prejudice component, so Curtis’ ineffective assistance claim must fail as a matter of law. Walker v. Houston, supra.
2. Because there was no showing of any prejudice, we need not determine whether Curtis otherwise made a sufficient showing that his attorney failed to advise him of his right not to testify and thаt such failure constituted an act of deficient performance. Walker v. Houston, supra at 472 (2).
Judgment reversed.