for postconviction relief alleging six grounds. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of grounds two, three, four, and six; we reverse its denial of grounds one and five. In ground one, Lara complains about his trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress. Although the trial court was correct that ground one was facially insufficient, it should have allowed Lara to amend under Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 755 (Fla.2007). Additionally, the issue is not, as the trial court concluded, whether the filing of a motion to suppress in the instant case would have “changed the outcome of the proceedings.” Rather, the issue is whether Lara would have elected to forego the entry of his plea, and instead proceed to trial. See Cordes v. State, 842 So.2d 874, 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). But for the admissions Lara made to the
holding that to establish prejudice sufficient to warrant finding of ineffective assistance the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that the defendant could not prove prejudice from alleged ineffective assistance because he has never claimed that but for counsels errors he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted upon going to trial holding in the context of a plea that the strickland prejudice prong requires a defendant to demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial holding that to succeed on an ineffective assistance claim a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that where defendant seeks to withdraw his plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel the prejudice prong of the strickland test is satisfied by demonstrating that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial alteration in original quoting hill v lockhart 474 us 52 58 106 sct 366 88 led2d 203 1985