SANTIAGO MILIAN A/K/A SANTIAGO JIMENEZ v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 6, 2023
• Docket: 22-1786
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 6, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1786 Lower Tribunal No. F14-24007 ________________

Santiago Milian a/k/a Santiago Jimenez, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces and Jose L. Fernandez, Judges.

Santiago Milian, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Waterhouse v. State, 792 So. 2d 1176, 1182 (Fla. 2001)

(noting that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a defendant

to demonstrate deficient performance and that such deficient performance

prejudiced the defense, and “because the Strickland standard requires

establishment of both prongs, when a defendant fails to make a showing as

to one prong, it is not necessary to delve into whether he has made a

showing as to the other prong.”) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 697 (1984)) (“[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective

assistance claim ... to address both components of the inquiry if the

defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.”) See also Downs v. State,

740 So. 2d 506, 518 n.19 (Fla.1999) (finding no need to address prejudice

prong where defendant failed to establish deficient performance prong);

Kennedy v. State, 547 So. 2d 912, 914 (Fla.1989) (noting that where

defendant fails to establish prejudice prong court need not determine

whether counsel's performance was deficient).