JUSTIS MARTIN,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

HENDON, J.

Justis Martin appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.

In 2007, Martin was sentenced to youthful offender sanctions and twenty-two months in prison to be followed by two years of community control with another year of reporting probation. Martin violated community control by committing new crimes stemming from an armed robbery in which the State charged Martin with first-degree murder, second-degree felony murder and armed robbery (lower court case number 09-11820(d)). In 2014, the trial court conducted a probation violation hearing.

However, before sentencing on the probation violation matter, Martin went to trial and was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and second-degree felony murder. In 2016, Martin was sentenced to life imprisonment as to the first-degree murder charge, thirty years concurrent as to the second-degree felony murder and fifteen years for armed robbery. Martin also received a six-year sentence for the new law violation to be served consecutive to the sentence imposed in case 09-11820(d).

On appeal, this court affirmed Martin’s order of revocation in all respects, except for the violation of failing to obtain a GED. This court also affirmed Martin’s appeal of the conviction and sentence in case 09-11820(d).

Martin now files a motion for postconviction relief, pursuant to Rule 3.850, raising various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. “A convicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal . . . has two components.

First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. . . .

Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); see also Blackwood v. State, 217 So. 3d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

Martin failed to “demonstrate both deficiency and prejudice,” thus we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. Krawczuk v. State, 92 So. 3d 195, 202 (Fla. 2012) (“[T]his Court has held that for ineffective assistance of counsel claims to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate both deficiency and prejudice.”) (citing Bolin v. State, 41 So. 3d 151, 155 (Fla. 2010)).

Martin’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel all fail on the merits and are conclusively refuted by the record. Lee v. State, 789 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for post-conviction relief unless . . . the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief . . . .”).

We therefore affirm the denial of relief as to all grounds raised.

Affirmed.