LANCE DESHAWN MOORE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2026-03-25
No. 2023-1465
418 So. 3d 829 2026 FL 3173 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2026) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's denial of a post-conviction motion. The motion alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to properly inform the appellant about a plea offer, which led him to reject it.

Holding

The court held that the trial court's determinations that counsel's performance was not deficient and that the appellant was not prejudiced by any deficiency were supported by competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, the denial of the post-conviction motion was proper.

Headnotes

[1] A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to provide information about a plea offer must demonstrate that counsel's performance wa…

[2] To show prejudice from counsel's deficient advice regarding a plea offer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that they would have accepted the offer, t…

Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Key Quotes

“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.”

This quote states the appellate court's conclusion and the basis for affirming the lower court's decision.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Lance Deshawn Moore appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. He claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not providing him w…

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.

Topics
Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel Deficient Performance Prejudice Motion For Postconviction Relief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM. Lance Deshawn Moore appeals the post-conviction court's June 30, 2023 order, entered after an evidentiary hearing, that denied Moore's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Moore challenges only that aspect of the June 30, 2023 order denying relief on Moore's claim that he rejected the State's favorable plea offer based on trial counsel's alleged failure to provide Moore the information necessary to make an informed decision on whether to accept the offer.1

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. Annicchiarico v. State, 300 So. 3d 805, 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) ("The lower court determined that trial counsel was more credible than Annicchiarico and concluded that Annicchiarico was properly advised regarding the multiple plea offers. That determination was supported by competent substantial evidence, as the letters between Annicchiarico and trial counsel, in addition to the testimony, demonstrated that Annicchiarico was well informed of the State's plea offers and the conditions that

Footnotes
1 Moore's other claim alleged that trial counsel was ineffective in advising Moore not to testify at trial. accompanied them.”); see also Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419, 422 (Fla. 2013) (“[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."). Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Elliot Duggans v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
    …s filed below and is contained in [the appellate] record,” and “Flournoy did not dispute his prior record or release dates at sentencing,” and “defense counsel conceded at sentencing that Flournoy qualified for the PRR enhancement”); Moore v. State, 418 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (affirming based on harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, citing, in part, to Flournoy); Jackson v. State, 410 So. 3d 4, 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (finding Erlinger error but concluding it "was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”…
  • Dyron Tucker v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw