RYLAND v. STATE (2019)

Rickey Ryland was convicted of, and sentenced for, first-degree murder. That conviction and sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. Ryland v. State, 129 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). In this appeal, Ryland seeks review of the trial court's order denying his postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Ryland filed a timely motion for postconviction relief on August 13, 2014, and an amended motion for postconviction relief on October 18, 2017. Thereafter, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which both Ryland and his trial counsel testified. The record of that evidentiary hearing contains competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's factual findings and, applying a de novo standard, we find no error in the trial court's conclusion that Ryland failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984): “The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” See also Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 996 (Fla. 2009) (observing: “The Court need not reach both Strickland prongs in every case. ‘[W]hen 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.’ Preston v. State, 970 So. 2d 789, 803 (Fla. 2007)”) (additional citations omitted).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.