State of Florida v. Cedric Plummer, 228 So. 3d 661

Appellee Cedric Plummer was convicted of attempted armed robbery (Count I) and robbery with a non-deadly weapon (Count II) after a convenience-store robbery in which the State introduced a plastic gun the officer identified as a BB gun.
At trial Sergeant Pearson testified the item “turned out to be” a BB gun based on appearance; defense cross-examination and closing emphasized uncertainty about what the object was.
Trial counsel argued the jury should not assume the object was a weapon but did not retain an expert or otherwise investigate the exact type and capabilities of the device.
On postconviction review (Rule 3.850), Plummer presented ballistics consultant Josh Wright who concluded the item was an airsoft gun (plastic pellets, lower velocity) and opined it was not a weapon capable of death or serious bodily harm under the jury instruction definition, except possibly by direct ocular impact.
The trial court found counsel deficient for failing to investigate/present expert evidence distinguishing an airsoft gun from a BB gun and concluded prejudice existed as a reasonable jury could have reached a different verdict on the weapon-enhanced robbery count (Count II); it granted a new trial on that count.
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, applying Strickland and concluding trial counsel’s failure deprived the jury of material evidence on whether the device qualified as a “weapon” and undermined confidence in the verdict as to Count II.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Plummer)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/retain an expert to identify the device	Counsel was deficient for not determining the gun was an airsoft pistol and for failing to present expert testimony that it could not cause death or serious bodily harm	Trial counsel reasonably pursued a strategy of emphasizing uncertainty and relied on lay descriptions; cross-examination and closing sufficiently challenged the officer’s testimony	Held: Counsel was deficient — trial court credited expert testimony that an airsoft gun differs materially from a BB gun and that defense lacked expert evidence at trial
Whether Plummer demonstrated Strickland prejudice from that deficiency	Expert testimony would likely have persuaded a reasonable juror that the device was not a “weapon” under the jury instruction, undermining confidence in the Count II verdict	Even Plummer’s expert admitted direct hits to the eye could cause blindness or hospital-level injury,so a new expert would not likely have changed the verdict	Held: Prejudice shown — the court concluded a reasonable probability exists that the outcome on the weapon-enhanced count would differ, so a new trial on Count II is warranted

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient-performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
Johnston v. State, 70 So.3d 472 (Fla. 2011) (standard for evaluating counsel performance and strategic decision deference)
Pennington v. State, 34 So.3d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (avoid hindsight; evaluate counsel from perspective at the time)
Putman v. Head, 268 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2001) (requirement that no competent counsel would have taken the action)
Simmons v. State, 105 So.3d 475 (Fla. 2012) (definition of reasonable probability for Strickland prejudice)
Reynolds v. State, 99 So.3d 459 (Fla. 2012) (standard of review for postconviction factual findings and de novo review of law application)
Dale v. State, 703 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1997) (confirming jury-instruction definition of “weapon” as any object that could cause death or inflict serious bodily harm)