Opinion ID: 2444929
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scott's Ninth Claim

Text: Scott next contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecution's closing statement in which the prosecution inappropriately bolstered its witnesses' credibility by using facts that were not based upon evidence presented at trial. Scott also argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this alleged prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal. This claim cannot succeed for two reasons. First, Scott made only general allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. Merely including excerpts of the trial transcript, without more, does not identify with particularity the specific portion(s) of the State's closing argument that allegedly contain facts that were not based upon evidence presented at trial. That imprecision made it impossible for the trial court to assess the merits of this claim. [37] Moreover, a review of the excerpted trial transcript discloses nothing objectionable. In the prosecution's closing argument, the prosecutor merely summarized each witness' testimony. Even assuming arguendo that the prosecutor's closing argument was improper, Scott has not identified any resulting prejudice that he suffered. [38] The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying this claim.