Summary
The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the denial of Lance Deshawn Moore’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The court held that competent, substantial evidence supported the findings that trial counsel was not deficient in advising Moore about a plea offer and that Moore was not prejudiced.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the post-conviction court correctly denied Moore's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's alleged failure to provide information about a favorable plea offer.
- Whether competent, substantial evidence supported the post-conviction court's determinations that counsel's performance was not deficient and that Moore suffered no prejudice.
Holdings
- The denial of post-conviction relief was proper because the post-conviction court's determinations that trial counsel's performance was not deficient and that Moore was not prejudiced were supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Key quotations
“We affirm because the trial court’s determinations that (i) Moore’s counsel’s performance was not deficient, and (ii) Moore was not prejudiced by any deficiency, are both amply supported by competent, substantial evidence.” (opinion at 2)
“[T]o show prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability, defined as a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, that (1) he or she would have accepted the offer had counsel advised the defendant correctly, (2) the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer, (3) the court would have accepted the offer, and (4) the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed.” (121 So. 3d at 422)
Factual background
Moore alleged that trial counsel failed to provide information necessary for him to make an informed decision about whether to accept a favorable plea offer, causing him to reject the offer. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court found that counsel's performance was not deficient and that Moore was not prejudiced by any alleged deficiency. Moore appealed only the denial of this plea-offer-related claim; he did not challenge in this appeal the denial of his separate claim concerning advice not to testify.
Procedural history
The circuit court entered an order on June 30, 2023, denying Moore's post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On appeal, Moore challenged only the denial of his claim that he rejected a favorable plea offer because counsel failed to provide information necessary for an informed decision. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed.