## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 17

- 3833

_____________________________

R UFUS B. J ONES

,

Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James C. Hankinson , Judge

.

October 30, 2019

M.K. T HOMAS

, J.

Rufus Jones appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He argues the postconviction court erred by failing to find ineffective assistance
of trial counsel for improperly advis ing him regarding the State’s plea offer

. ∗ We disagree and affirm the denial of Appellant’s postconviction motion.

∗ Appellant also claims the postconviction court erred in its analysis of whether he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s alleged deficient performance. However, because we find Appellant fails2 I. Facts and Proc edural History

Following a jury trial, Jones was found guilty of attempted
second

- degree murder and received the minimum mandatory sentence of twenty years imprisonment. This Court affirmed the judgment and sentence. See Jones v. State , 107 So. 3d 563 (F la. 1st DCA 2013). Thereafter, Jones timely filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, arguing his lead trial counsel, Attorney
Handfield , rendered ineffective assistance in advising him to decline a favorable plea offer from the State. The postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing on his claim s

.
Jones was represented by Attorney Handfield, lead counsel at trial, and Attorney Akbar, a local attorney acting as second chair

. It is u ndisputed that p rior to trial the State submitted a five

- year plea offer , which was renewed on the day of trial.

At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, Jones claimed Attorney Handfield advised hi m not to accept the plea offer
because he believed the vi ctim’s testimony would be favorable to
Jones’ defense , and he was confident he would win at trial. However, Jones could not recall whether Attorney Handfield
advised if he had spoken with or deposed the victim. Jones claim s that had he known the victim’s testimony would not be favorable
to him at trial , he would have accepted the plea offer.

Attorney Akbar , defense co

- counsel, confirmed that Jones was
offered a five

- year plea deal

, which he conveyed to Jones. He was not present when Attorney Handfield discussed the plea offer with
Jones. According to Attorney Akbar, Attorney Handfield told
Jones’ family not to take the plea as he had a strong case for trial. Attorney Akbar indicate d Jones relied heavily on what his family thought and suggested. Attorney Akbar also recalled Attorney
Handfield advising the family that the victim’s testimony would be
favorable to the defense. However, in his opinion it was not. Attorney Akbar testifi ed that he encouraged both Jones and his family to take the plea offer

, as Jones was facing a maximum

to establish deficient perfor mance, we need not address issues related to the prejudice prong.3 sentence of life with a minimum mandatory of twenty years

. Regardless, Jones declined the offer.

Attorney Handfield , lead defense counsel, testified the victim was not a cooperative witness . But, at trial

, he was able to elicit testimony from the victim that he was a convicted murder er , d id not see who shot him, did not want the case prosecuted , had been stalking Jones’ mother

, and had threatened to take her life. Attorney Handfield b elieve d the five

- year plea offer was reasonable under the circumstances, but Jones de clined t o accept

. He claimed that when he spoke with Jones’ family, he explained
the offer was reasonable. He denied in structing Jones to reject the plea offer, but instead recommended to Jones that he accept it

. Attorney Handfield agreed that he believed there was a good chance of winning at trial but claimed he never guarantees a victory and did not do so in this case

. According to Attorney Handfield, Jones’ family was encouraging him not to accept the plea agreement. He could not recall whether he or Attorney Akbar took the victim’s deposition and claimed he was not relying on the victim’s testimony to make his case.

T he prosecutor in the case testified he discuss ed the plea offer with Attorney Akbar and both agreed Jones should have taken the plea offer . H owever, he recalled tha t Attorney Handfield was “ in charge ” of the defense . According to the prosecutor, both defense attorneys discussed the plea offer with Jones

, but he did not w ish
to accept.

At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the

p ostconviction judge orally announced his ruling. Regarding the legal advice given to Jones on the plea offer, the judge s tated:

I don't find that there's a direct conflict between the testimony of Mr. Akbar and Mr. Handfield. Mr. Akbar was certain about certain parts of his testimony, which
was that he recommended to Mr. Jones that he take the plea. He was less confident about having heard everything that was said between Mr. Handfield and Mr. Jones; and, in fact, had indicated he did not hear all the
conversations. I don't think there's a direct conflict there. He did say

-- Mr . Akbar said that Mr. Handfield believed4 this was a winnable case. I think that's supported by Mr. Handfield's testimony, but I accept Mr. Handfield's testimony that he recommended, as did Mr. Akbar, that Mr. Jones take the plea. For whatever reason, Mr. J ones decided to ignore their advice. I suspect what was happening, and unfortunate, but I suspect Mr. Jones was listening to family members more so than he was listening to his attorneys. But, anyway, to the extent it's
asserted of a direct conflict there, I don't find that to be
the case.

The postconviction court entered an order denying postconviction
relief , finding Jones failed to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel or that he was prejudiced by any alleged deficiency.

II. Legal Analy sis

When reviewing the trial court’s denial of an a ppellant’s motion after an evidentiary hearing, an appellate court must give deference to the trial court’s findings of facts that are supported by competent, substantial evidence and review the findings of law de

novo. Hunter v. State , 87 So. 3d 1273, 12 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court as to the credibility of the witnesses or the weight to be given to the evidence. State v. Dickson , 89 So. 3d 277, 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). A determin ation as to which testimony is most credible is a finding of fact which should be made by the postconviction

court. See Santiago v. State , 252 So. 3d 421, 422 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (La m bert J. concurring opinion) (citing Shere v. State , 742 So. 2d 215, 218 n.8 (Fla. 1999) ).

T o show ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant must demonstrate: (1) counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced him

. Strickland v. Washington

, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Regarding the firs t prong, the Supreme
Court has detailed that a defendant must show “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.”
Id . at 688. In establishing the second prong, “the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probabilit y that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the results of the proceeding would have5 been different.” Id. at 694. A “reasonable probability” is one which
is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding. Id

. “Because the Strickl and standard requires a showing of both counsel’s deficient performance and prejudice to the defendant, once a reviewing court determines that the defendant has not established one prong, the court is not required to analyze whether the defendant has estab lished the other prong.”
Frances v. State , 143 So. 3d 340, 347 (Fla. 2014) (citing Stewart v.
State , 801 So. 2d 59, 64 (Fla. 2001).

The postconviction court held Jones failed to show Attorney Handfield’s performance was deficient, concluding Jones had chosen not to accept his attorneys’ advice when he rejected the plea
offer . In reaching this conclusion, the postconviction court found

n o conflict between Attorney Akbar ’s and Attorney Handfield’s testimony with respect to both advising Jones to accept the offer

. This is a finding of fact which this Court will not disturb if supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Hunter , 87 So. 3d at 1275. Here, the record su pport s this conclusion. Both Attorney s Akbar and Handfield testified that they urged Jones to take the plea offer. Attorney Akbar acknowledged he was not present when Attorney Handfield spoke to Jones regarding
whether he should take the plea offer

. The postconviction court found the testimony of the attorneys that Jones was advised to accept the plea offer more credible than that of Jones. We will not disturb this factual finding on appeal.

III. Conclusion

It is not the role of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court as to the credibility of the witnesses or the weight to be given to the evidence. Competent

, substantial evidence supports the postconviction court’s factual findings. Therefore, w e affirm the denial o f Appellant’s motion for
post conviction relief.

A FFIRMED

.

W OLF and M AKAR

, JJ., concur

.6 _____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or

9.331

.

_____________________________

Michael Ufferman of the Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A.,
Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, and Steven Edward Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.