counsel], a defendant must show that his (1) counsel’s performance was deficient, meaning it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, meaning counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. State v. Smith, _ N.C. App. _, _, 749 S.E.2d 507, 509 (2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The relevance of the objected-to evidence here relates—at very best—to the defendant’s intent to commit larceny upon entering the church. Given our disposition of the breaking or entering charge, defendant cannot show prejudice from any failure of his trial counsel to object to this evidence. Therefore, he is not entitled to a new trial. V. Conclu S.E.2d 167, 169 (1986) (<HOLDING>), disc. rev. dismissed, 320 N.C. 165, 357
holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where he tried to enter the house drunk and was staying at the neighboring house holding that service was proper where a copy of the summons and complaint was left with the defendants wife at the defendants maryland house in which the defendant had lived before moving ahead of his family to arizona where he had purchased a house intending never to return to maryland and to move his family to arizona noting that the service was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of service at the defendants dwelling house or usual place of abode where the service succeeded in actually apprising him of the lawsuit holding that defendant staying in abandoned house had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the house despite having a key to the house and the ability to let people in and out of it holding that defendant was seized where the officer told defendant that she knew that he was on probation defendant admitted to the officer that he had given her a false name and defendant was asked for consent to search a backpack because a reasonable inference was that defendant was the subject of a continuing investigation and his or her freedom of movement had been significantly restricted by the officers show of authority holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where defendant believed house to be that of his girlfriend and nothing in the dwelling had been disturbed