appellant entered a plea purporting to admit to a violation of probation on a nonexistent charge. Because appellant’s lawyer at the time apparently thought appellant was facing potential sentencing on this nonexistent charge, the lawyer gave appellant clearly erroneous advice concerning the maximum sentence available. Appellant alleges that had he known he was facing only one charge, possession of cocaine, rather than two charges, he would have proceeded to trial on the cocaine charge. I agree with the majority that on the facts of this case, the prejudice prong required for a showing of ineffective assistance of counsel has been met. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Buford v. Wainwright, 428 So.2d 1389, 1391 (Fla.1983) (<HOLDING>) I write separately because I believe that the
holding that to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a defendant must demonstrate that counsel was constitutionally deficient and as a result defendant was prejudiced holding that to demonstrate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel petition must establish that the alleged error was prejudicial in fact holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record