Seibert asserts that the posteonvietion court erred in denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to the penalty phase. We disagree. Because both prongs of the ineffectiveness test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), present mixed questions of law and fact, this Court employs a mixed standard of review. Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766, 771 (Fla.2004). The Court will defer to the postconviction court’s factual findings as long as they are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record, and the Court will review the lower court’s legal conclusions de novo. Id. at 772. Following the United States Supreme Court decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (<HOLDING>), this Court held that two requirements must be
recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that a newly assigned counsel may be entitled to a continuance based on the criminal defendants sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel