Opinion ID: 1652300
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: counsel for petitioner raised a prosecutorial misconduct claim on direct appeal for the first time.

Text: ¶ 8. Although a contemporaneous objection was not made at the re-sentencing trial, counsel nonetheless claimed for the first time on direct appeal that improper comments by the prosecutor denied the defendant a fair trial. Even though this Court considered and rejected the merits of the claim, Williams maintains that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to preserve the alleged errors because of their cumulative effect. Williams argued on direct appeal that: (1) the prosecutor improperly referred to the victim's family during closing argument; (2) the prosecutor improperly commented on the likelihood of appellate review during closing argument; (3) the prosecutor improperly asked jurors during voir dire if they would promise to give the death penalty if the State proved its case; (4) the prosecutor made inflammatory comments to the jury (e.g., referring to Williams as an animal); and, (5) the prosecutor improperly referred to facts not in evidence (i.e., stating that the victim may have been incapacitated by her drugs placed in her drink either by herself, or in my opinion more likely put there by the animal she was with.). ¶ 9. Without waiving the procedural bar, the Court carefully examined each one of these contentions on direct appeal and found them all to be without merit. Williams, 684 So.2d at 1202-06. It follows that there can be no prejudice from the failure to properly preserve these issues for appellate review if the alleged errors are without merit. It is therefore not possible to show prejudice under the second prong of the Strickland test, i.e., that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the objections been made to each of the challenged comments. In the absence of any error at all, there can be no cumulative error which might have prejudiced Williams and, as stated previously, a claim may not be recast as ineffective assistance of counsel claim once it already has been decided on direct appeal. Foster, 687 So.2d at 1129.