JIMMY VELEZ, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

EMAS, J.

Jimmy Velez appeals the trial court’s order denying, without evidentiary hearing, his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

In his motion, Velez asserted two claims of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel:

1. Trial counsel provided affirmative misadvice which caused Velez to reject a “favorable” plea offer and proceed to trial. Velez claims that, but for the affirmative misadvice, he would have accepted the plea offer.

2. Trial counsel failed to properly move for a judgment of acquittal based upon the State’s failure to prove the “knowledge” element of trafficking in heroin.

The State, in its response to this Court, candidly and properly concedes that the first claim should be remanded to the trial court for further consideration.1 We reverse the trial court’s order on this claim and remand for the trial court to consider whether Velez is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

As to Velez’s second claim, the trial court attached to its order a portion of the trial testimony of one of the narcotics officers, as well as the recorded post-Miranda statement of Velez (which was introduced into evidence at trial).

In his post-Miranda statement, Velez told the officer:

— Velez bought the substance “from a person who brought it from Colombia”;

— Velez did not know the person he bought the substance from and did not know that person’s name;

— The person who sold it to Velez “told me it was drugs”;

— When asked what Velez thought the substance was, Velez told the officer: “I think it was heroin”;

— Velez “bought it to sell it”;

— Velez purchased “one hundred thirty grams” of the substance;

— Velez paid “two thousand dollars” for it;

— Velez was going to sell it “to some man named Gonzalez” for “three thousand” dollars;

— Velez met with Gonzalez at a Publix supermarket the day before the sale was to take place, and gave Gonzalez “a sample” of the substance;

— The next day, Velez returned to Publix to meet Gonzalez and complete the sale;

— Before the sale could take place, Velez saw police arriving and Velez quickly left the Publix and “threw [the drugs] in the garbage.”

These record attachments conclusively show that Velez is entitled to no relief on this claim. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d). Had trial counsel argued in the *687motion for judgment of acquittal that the State failed to prove Velez knew the substance in his possession was heroin, the motion would have been denied, since this was not an essential element of the crime.2 Trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make a meritless argument. Maharaj v. State, 778 So.2d 944 (Fla.2000); Ridel v. State, 990 So.2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). We affirm the trial court’s order denying postconviction relief on this claim.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.