the victims’ trailer with the intent to steal from them but without any intent to kill them. Thus, Walls description of what he thought the trial strategy would be is exactly the trial strategy presented by his counsel. Moreover, even if Walls’ testimony had been in direct conflict with the testimony of his attorneys, we would still recognize the trial court’s superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses. See Chandler v. State, 848 So.2d 1031, 1041 n. 11 (Fla.2003) (affirming denial of postcon-viction relief on a similar claim of conceding guilt where court found trial counsel’s testimony to be more credible than that of the defendant, who “waffled” on whether he agreed to the strategy in his testimony); see also Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028, 1034 (Fla.1999) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we affirm the trial court’s denial of
holding that because the trial court sitting as the trier of fact conducts an evidencebalancing test from the vantage point of being best able to judge credibility of witnesses and the weight to be assigned thereto we will defer to its opinion holding that superior court was in best position to make factual determination because it required assessing credibility and each partys testimony recognizing that in any criminal trial the credibility of the prosecutions witnesses is central holding trial court free to evaluate credibility of witnesses recognizing trial courts superior vantage point in assessing credibility of witnesses