PER CURIAM

Lawrence appealed from a judgment convicting him of third degree sexual abuse arguing he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel as the attorney did not present the evidence he stated he would during opening statements—that the legislator's office, their employer, was dysfunctional, and victim had an EEOC complaint filed against her. He also alleged his sentence was harsh and excessive. Lawrence was charged with forcible touching and sexual abuse. It was alleged he hugged and kissed victim co-worker against her will while rubbing his genitals against her and later hugged victim from behind while touching her breasts. Prosecutors argued Lawrence's claims amounted to a disagreement about trial tactics and strategy with counsel, noting counsel secured an acquittal on three of the four charges. The panel agreed finding while counsel did not elicit evidence the legislator's office was dysfunctional or an EEOC complaint was filed against victim, he failed to establish that if such evidence were elicited it would be “fairly characterized as clear-cut and dispositive” in his favor. Viewed in its totality, Lawrence received meaningful representation, and as he was previously convicted of assault, a 90 day incarceration and $500 fine was neither harsh nor excessive.