State v. Prudent

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Prudent

137 So. 3d 1168, 2014 WL 1393099, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5232

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 2014

DocketNo. 3D12-1852

StatusPublished

This text of 137 So. 3d 1168 (State v. Prudent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Prudent, 137 So. 3d 1168, 2014 WL 1393099, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5232 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

The defendant, Ensi Prudent, filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Following an extensive evi-dentiary hearing, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion and awarded him a new trial. Based on the trial court’s relevant findings of fact, which are supported by competent, substantial evidence, we find no error in the trial court’s legal conclusion that trial counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the deficiency prejudiced the defendant. See Rojas v. State, 922 So.2d 350, 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact. The trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations are afforded deference and if supported by competent, substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.”). Accordingly, we affirm the order under review.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ROTHENBERG, J.

The defendant, Ensi Prudent, filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Following an extensive evi-dentiary hearing, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion and awarded him a new trial. Based on the trial court’s relevant findings of fact, which are supported by competent, substantial evidence, we find no error in the trial court’s legal conclusion that trial counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the deficiency prejudiced the defendant. See Rojas v. State, 922 So.2d 350, 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact. The trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations are afforded deference and if supported by competent, substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.”). Accordingly, we affirm the order under review.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 So. 3d 1168, 2014 WL 1393099, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-prudent-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack