WILLIAMS v. STATE (2021)

Appellant, Eddie Williams, appeals the denial of his postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Mr. Williams claims his counsel was ineffective in making his motion for judgment of acquittal and that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing on this claim. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are analyzed under the two-prong test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)—deficient performance and resulting prejudice—and present mixed questions of law and fact. Bradley v. State, 33 So. 3d 664, 672 (Fla. 2010).

Mr. Williams's trial counsel was not deficient in making the motion for judgment of acquittal. Counsel argued that the State failed to prove an essential element of robbery. Curiously, this is the same argument Appellant now claims should have been made.

The record conclusively demonstrates that Appellant was not entitled to postconviction relief. See Hutchinson v. State, 17 So. 3d 696, 700 (Fla. 2009). The trial court did not err in denying this postconviction claim without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Bilbrey, Nordby, and Long, JJ., concur.