While he did not expect appellant to be questioned about the videotape, trial counsel stated he did not think appellant's responses to the prosecutor's questions about the videotape were problematic. Counsel did, however, believe appellant's demeanor at the time was harmful because appellant seemed to be angry. Since trial counsel presented reasonable strategic reasons for introducing the videotape, the fact that appellant was ill-prepared or made uncomfortable by the cross-examination regarding the videotape and, in hindsight, may not have elected to testify, does not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Bowie v. State, 286 Ga. 880(3)(b), 692 S.E.2d 371; Sledge v. State, 312 Ga.App. 97(2)(a-b), 717 S.E.2d 682 (2011) (counsel was not deficient for introducing videotape of defendant's previous arrest because the decision to introduce the videotape was part of reasonable trial strategy); Fountain v. State, 231 Ga.App. 700, 500 S.E.2d 614 (1998) (tactical errors do not constitute ineffective assistance in a case where defendant's counsel introduced defendant's prior criminal history). Therefore, appellant cannot sustain his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Moreover, any testimony elicited about whether Shelnutt could have lawfully possessed a firearm or had a criminal record was not so significant as to have contributed to the jury's verdict given the significant evidence that Shelnutt acted intentionally when he drove his truck toward the deputies and into their vehicles. See Fountain v. State , 231 Ga. App. 700, 701, 500 S.E.2d 614 (1998) (finding that counsel's decision to elicit a defendant's criminal history was not prejudicial considering the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt). Therefore, we conclude that Shelnutt's counsel's cross-examination was neither deficient nor prejudicial.