Edwin Proano v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 29, 2026
• Docket: 3D2024-1771
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 29, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1771 Lower Tribunal No. F15-13519 ________________

Edwin Proano, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christine Hernandez, Judge.

Edwin Proano, in proper person.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Haccord J. Curry, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.

MILLER, J. Appellant, Edwin Proano, appeals from an order denying his motion for

postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b)

following an evidentiary hearing. Deferring to the trial court’s credibility

findings, as we must, noting that Proano’s former counsel, a board-certified

criminal defense attorney reasonably explained her tactical decision to forgo

calling the responding officer as a witness, and finding that the trial court’s

finding as to the lack of a formal six-year plea offer is supported by

competent, substantial evidence, we affirm. See Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d

975, 996 (Fla. 2009) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims reviewed for

competent and substantial evidence under Strickland1); Downs v. State, 453

So. 2d 1102, 1107–09 (Fla. 1984) (“Judicial scrutiny of counsel's

performance must be highly deferential” and “even if . . . counsel's

conduct . . . [was] unreasonable, we would also . . . [find] counsel's

deficiencies did not prejudice [the defendant].”); Everett v. State, 54 So. 3d

464, 474 (Fla. 2010) (“[T]rial counsel's decision to not call certain witnesses

to testify at trial can be reasonable trial strategy.”); Cobb v. State, 394 So. 3d

1195, 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“[E]rroneous strategic prediction about the

outcome of a trial is not necessarily deficient performance.” (quoting Lafler

v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 174 (2012))); see also Lawrence v. State, 969 So.

1 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2 2d 294, 308 (Fla. 2007) (“[Appellant] has not demonstrated ‘a reasonable

probability that, but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not have

pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.’” (quoting

Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176, 1179 (Fla. 2004))); Wait v. State, 212

So. 3d 1082, 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“Appellant would not have accepted

the plea offer, and that finding is supported by competent and substantial

evidence.”); Dombrowski v. State, 695 So. 2d 470, 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)

(“From our reading of the transcript, no plea bargain was in fact offered.”).

Affirmed.