Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 08, 2017.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D16-2284
Lower Tribunal No. 11-23587
________________
Erick Pacheco,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the
Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Daryl E. Trawick, Judge.
Erick Pacheco, in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before WELLS, ROTHENBERG, and LAGOA, JJ.
ROTHENBERG, J.
Erick Pacheco (“Pacheco”) was convicted of lewd and lascivious
molestation on a child between the age of twelve and sixteen (Count 1); lewd and
lascivious conduct on a child twelve to sixteen years of age by the defendant who
was eighteen years of age or older (Count 3); and lewd and lascivious battery on a
child less than sixteen years of age (Count 4).1 The record reflects that the victim
was thirteen or fourteen years old and Pacheco was thirty-eight years old when
Pacheco committed the charged offenses upon the victim.
On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions for the offenses
charged in Counts 1 and 4, but based on the State’s proper confession of error
(double jeopardy grounds), this Court reversed the conviction for the offense
charged in Count 3 with instructions to the trial court to vacate the conviction and
sentence imposed for Count 3, recalculate Pacheco’s sentencing scoresheet, and
resentence Pacheco. Pacheco v. State, 170 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). The
trial court fully complied with this Court’s directive and substantially reduced
Pacheco’s sentence.
Pacheco now appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for
postconviction relief, in which Pacheco alleged eleven separate grounds of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which he contends requires a new trial.
After review of Pacheco’s motion, the State’s lengthy (seventy-seven page) and
1 During trial, the trial court granted a judgment of acquittal as to Count 2 on
double jeopardy grounds.
2
very thorough response, the record, the relevant statutes and case law, and the trial
court’s order, we find no error and affirm. The claims raised by Pacheco were
refuted by the record and/or were without merit.
Affirmed.
3