errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. [Cit.] Smith v. Francis, supra at 783 (1). We accept the habeas court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we apply the facts to the law de novo. Lajara v. State, 263 Ga. 438 (3) (435 SE2d 600) (1993). Because an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must show both deficient attorney performance and prejudice, the claim can be denied solely on the absence of sufficient prejudice. Id. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude as a matter of law that the absence of the deficiencies in Lance’s trial counsel’s performance would not in reasonable probability have resulted in a different outcome in either phase of Lance’s trial. See Schofield v. Holsey, 281 Ga. 809, 812, n. 1 (642 SE2d 56) (2007) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse the habeas court’s
holding that the combined effect of trial counsels various professional deficiencies should be considered holding that courts should be mindful of the location of witnesses and counsel in weighing the relative accessibility of the place of trial holding that the cumulative impact of multiple deficiencies in defense counsels performance prejudiced the defendant in a capital trial holding that the combined effect of trial counsels deficiencies should be considered in weighing prejudice holding that the combined effect of trial counsels errors should be considered