CENDAN
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Rafael Cendan appeals an order denying his postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of defense counsel under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and concluded that defense counsel was not deficient, leading to denial of the motion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's determination.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order denying the postconviction motion, finding no error in the trial court's determination that defense counsel was not deficient. The evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing supported the trial court's conclusion.
[1] To establish ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a guilty plea, the defendant must prove both that counsel's performance was deficient and that there was…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCendan pleaded guilty to underlying criminal charges and subsequently filed a postconviction motion alleging that his defense counsel failed to advise…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deficient Performance Prong cases and more on FLexlaw
Rafael Cendan appeals an order denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his postconviction motion alleging claims for ineffective assistance of defense counsel.
See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. We affirm.
To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Cendan must demonstrate both that defense counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced him. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984);
Chandler v. State, 848 So. 2d 1031, 1035 (Fla. 2003). Cendan asserts that his defense counsel was ineffective for counsel’s alleged failure to advise Cendan of available defenses prior to Cendan pleading guilty to the underlying charges. To prevail on this claim, Cendan was required to prove both: (i) that defense counsel’s performance was deficient; and (ii) that under “the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea,” there was a reasonable probability that, but for defense counsel’s deficiency, Cendan would have gone to trial instead of entering a plea.
Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176, 1181-82 (Fla. 2004).
Based on the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing conducted below, the trial court concluded that defense counsel was not at all deficient and denied Cendan’s rule 3.850 motion. Having reviewed the record, we find no error in the trial court’s determination. See Mungin v. State, 932 So. 2d 986, 998 (Fla. 2006) (“In reviewing a trial court’s ruling after an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, this Court defers to the factual findings of the trial court to the extent that they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviews de novo the application of the law to those facts.”). We therefore affirm the order denying Cendan’s motion for postconviction relief.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2004)
- Mungin v. State, 932 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2006)
- Oba Chandler v. State, 848 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2003)