RICKEY RYLAND, vs THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 14, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D18-1222 Lower Tribunal No. 07-24507 ________________ Rickey Ryland, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan S. Fine, Judge. Rickey Ryland, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Natalia Costea, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Rickey Ryland was convicted of, and sentenced for, first-degree murder. That conviction and sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. Ryland v. State, 129 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). In this appeal, Ryland seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Ryland filed a timely motion for postconviction relief on August 13, 2014, and an amended motion for postconviction relief on October 18, 2017. Thereafter, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which both Ryland and his trial counsel testified. The record of that evidentiary hearing contains competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings and, applying a de novo standard, we find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that Ryland failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984): “The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” See also Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 996 (Fla. 2009) (observing: “The Court need not reach both Strickland prongs in every case. ‘[W]hen a defendant fails to make a showing as to one prong, it is not necessary to delve into whether he has made a showing as to the other prong.’ Preston v. State, 970 So. 2d 789, 803 (Fla. 2007)”) (additional citations omitted). Affirmed. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
