Lorninous ISOM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ., Concur. LaROSE, J., Concurs with opinion.

LaROSE, Judge,

Concurring.

This appeal involves the denial of Lorni-nous Isom’s motion for postconviction relief. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. The post-conviction court properly denied relief and this court properly affirms the order on appeal. I write separately to address Mr. Isom’s claim that the postconviction court erred in allowing the assistant state attorney who prosecuted him for the underlying first-degree murder charge to testify as the State’s key witness and to act as the State’s advocate at the rule 3.850 eviden-tiary hearing.

I find it clear, and the State seemingly concedes, that the prosecutor should not have served as witness and counsel at the hearing. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.7(a). I do not condone this dual role. However, the record before us fails to demonstrate that Mr. Isom suffered any undue prejudice as a result.