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, 292 Ga. 160, 186 (733 SE2d 304) (2012) (where the trial court resolved the defendant’s ineffective assistance claim without addressing prejudice, this Court resolved the issue on the prejudice prong, holding that “[ajfter an independent review of the record, this Court concludes as a matter of law that, even assuming” that trial counsel performed deficiently, the defendant “has failed to show that he was prejudiced”). Accord Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U. S. 374, 390 (125 SCt 2456, 162 LE2d 360) (2005) (<HOLDING>). Finally, to determine prejudice involving a
holding that this court reviews a booker issue de novo where the defendant objected in the district court to sentence enhancements based on facts not found by a jury nor admitted by the defendant holding that where a state court found that the defendants representation was adequate and did not reach the issue of prejudice the court could examine this element of the strickland claim de novo recognizing that the application of statutory criteria to facts as found by the district court is subject to de novo review holding that this court is not bound by the conclusions of law reached by the trial court and the applicable standard of review for such issues is de novo holding that review is de novo where there has been no adjudication on the merits in state court