Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 29, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D18-2505 Lower Tribunal No. 10-361 ________________ Kevin G. Rawls, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Veronica A. Diaz, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SALTER, SCALES, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant, Kevin Rawls, challenges the denial by the lower tribunal of his motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The court below conducted a comprehensive evidentiary hearing and subsequently concluded that the forgoing of depositions by trial counsel constituted a reasonable strategic decision, in view of all of the circumstances presented. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2065, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) (“[T]he defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’”) (citation omitted); Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037, 1048 (Fla. 2000) (“[S]trategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel’s decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct.”) (citations omitted). As that determination is amply supported, and the remaining summarily denied claims were both facially insufficient and refuted by the record, we discern no error and affirm. See Mosley v. State, 209 So. 3d 1248, 1262 (Fla. 2016) (“Where the postconviction court has conducted an evidentiary hearing, [the appellate court] will defer to the factual findings of the postconviction court so long as those findings are ‘supported by competent, substantial evidence.’”) (citation omitted); Forbes v. State, 269 So. 3d 677, 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“We defer to the postconviction court’s factual findings.”) (citing Stephens v. State, 748 So. 2d 1028, 1033-34 (Fla. 2 1999)); Savage v. State, 120 So. 3d 619, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (noting “competent” refers to “admissibility under legal rules of evidence,” while “‘[s]ubstantial’ requires that there be some . . . real, material, pertinent, and relevant evidence . . . having definite probative value”) (citation omitted); see also Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579, 583-84 (Fla. 2004) (“In a rule 3.850 motion, a defendant . . . would be required to allege what testimony defense counsel could have elicited from witnesses and how defense counsel’s failure to call, interview, or present the witnesses who would have so testified prejudiced the case . . . [Additionally, the motion] must include an assertion that those witnesses would in fact have been available to testify at trial.”). Affirmed. 3