Wells v. THE STATE , 281 Ga. 253 ( 2006 )

HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice,

concurring.

While I concur fully in the judgment, I write in regard to Division 2 (a) (addressing Wells’s claim that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to locate or call certain witnesses) to reiterate the necessity that a defendant comply with this Court’s holding in Dickens v. State, 280 Ga. 320 (2) (627 SE2d 587) (2006), i.e., adduce either the direct testimony of the missing witness or a legally acceptable substitute for that testimony, to support the required showing of prejudice in this type of ineffectiveness claim.