b) With regard to Turner’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to stipulate that intent was not an issue in the case, Turner does not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by such failure because the prior conviction could have been found to be admissible for another proper purpose. See Mims v. State , 301 Ga. App. 436, 437 (2), 687 S.E.2d 670 (2009) (when a defendant fails to show prejudice, we need not address the deficient performance prong). c) Turner’s contention that the trial court was ineffective for failing to object to testimony that Turner’s prior conviction was discovered through a drug warrant is also meritless. The "testimony came well within the scope of the facts brought up in the [Rule 404 (b) ] hearing."

Jones v. State, 315 Ga.App. 427, 433(3), 727 S.E.2d 216 (2012). See Mims v. State, 301 Ga.App. 436, 438–439(2)(a), 687 S.E.2d 670 (2009) (trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call witnesses for whom he had insufficient contact information where the defendant did not call those witnesses at his motion for new trial hearing or otherwise show their testimony would have altered the outcome of his case).Because [Fitzpatrick] neither called these witnesses to testify at the motion for new trial hearing nor presented a legally acceptable substitute for their direct testimony so as to substantiate his claim that the witnesses' testimony would have been relevant and favorable to his defense, it was impossible for [Fitzpatrick] to show there is a reasonable probability the results of the proceedings would have been different.

(Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Mims v. State, 301 Ga. App. 436, 437-438 (2) ( 687 SE2d 670) (2009). Pretermitting whether trial counsel was deficient, Durham has failed to establish prejudice.