the evidence supports a determination that officer safety was a legitimate concern, given the dimly-lit conditions at the scene of the stop, the presence of more than one occupant in the vehicle, the fact that the officer was the only one approaching the vehicle at that moment, and the actions of the occupants. Based on the foregoing, we find that, even if trial counsel had renewed his motion in order to preserve the issue, McHam has not shown there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different because his Fourth Amendment claim fails on its merits. Under these circumstances, McHam has not established the requisite prejudice to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See generally Foye v. State, 335 S.C. 586, 518 S.E.2d 265 (1999) (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION We hold the PCR judge erred in
holding that an attorneys performance was deficient because he failed to investigate and reasonably select the   defense used at trial holding that counsels performance was deficient for failing to investigate readily available evidence of mental impairment holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense holding pcr was properly denied where the applicant did not prove he was prejudiced by trial counsels deficient performance in failing to preserve an issue at trial