Opinion ID: 1705889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Send-a-Message Argument.

Text: ¶ 63. Spicer argues that his counsel should have objected to the prosecutor's send-a-message argument during closing arguments of the guilt phase, and that the failure to object equates ineffective assistance of counsel. Spicer admits that this Court considered the substantive claim on direct appeal. This Court held that the send-a-message statements made to the jury by the prosecutor were error and noted that Spicer's trial counsel did not make a contemporaneous objection. Despite the arguable procedural bar, this Court discussed the merits of Spicer's claim and found the error to be harmless. Spicer, 921 So.2d at 317-19. ¶ 64. Even assuming that trial counsel was deficient, this Court already has determined that Spicer was not prejudiced. Therefore, Spicer fails to meet the second prong of Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052.