In Zack v. State, 911 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2005), Zack argued that trial counsel failed to adequately prepare him to testify at trial and failed to inform him about what would occur during cross-examination. Zack contended that had he been adequately prepared and informed of the hazards of cross-examination, he would not have testified. Zack stated that trial counsel gave him no choice but to testify, and that he was only told that he was going to testify after trial began. Id. at 1198. The trial court found that Zack had testified on his own behalf at trial to give his version of events even on cross-examination. Id. at 1199. The trial court further found that Zack showed a desire to explain himself on cross-examination, and that Zack failed to show either that counsel failed to prepare him or that he suffered any prejudice. Id. at 1199-1200. The Court accepted the trial court's findings. Id.