Case Name: Ruel LANIER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-03-04
Citations: 709 So. 2d 112
Docket Number: No. 96-2631
Parties: Ruel LANIER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT, JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH, GREEN, FLETCHER, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 709
Pages: 112–122

Head Matter:
Ruel LANIER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-2631.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 4, 1998.
Rehearing Denied May 6, 1998.
Levy, J., concurred and filed opinion joined by Schwartz, C.J., and Nesbitt, Jor-genson, and Goderich, JJ.
Shevin, J., dissented and filed opinion joined by Cope, Gersten, Green, and Fletcher, JJ.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Ray Taseff and Beth C. Weitzner, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Sandra S. Jaggard, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT, JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, GODERICH, GREEN, FLETCHER, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
As we did in Jones v. State, 466 So.2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(en banc), approved, 485 So.2d 1283 (Fla.1986), we sua sponte consider this case era banc because the proposed majority panel opinion directly conflicted with several of our prior decisions concerning both (a) the role of the trial court in assessing the evidence before it in post-conviction proceedings, e.g., McDonald v. State, 249 So.2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Cash v. State, 207 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, cert. dismissed, 211 So.2d 209 (Fla.1968); see generally Horatio Enters. v. Rabin, 614 So.2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), and (b) the principles, as established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which govern claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. E.g., Adams v. State, 669 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State v. Oisorio, 657 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), approved, 676 So.2d 1363 (Fla.1996); Martinez v. State, 655 So.2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Barclay v. Singletary, 642 So.2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 651 So.2d 1192 (Fla.1995); Eason v. State, 632 So.2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Stirrup, 469 So.2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 480 So.2d 1296 (Fla.1985).
On the merits, we conclude that the appellant has not demonstrated that the trial judge erred in finding, after an evidentiary hearing, that the second, or "prejudice," prong of Strickland had not been satisfied— that is, that, but for "counsel's [alleged] unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 669, 104 S.Ct. at 2055-56, 80 L.Ed.2d at 682; see Cole v. State, 700 So.2d 33, 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), and cases cited.
Like the trial judge, we do not reach the issue of whether Lanier satisfied the first, or "performance," prong of Strickland.
Affirmed.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT, JORGENSON, LEVY, GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ., concur.