Opinion ID: 799074
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Failure to object to instances of improper conduct by the prosecutor at the guilt phase

Text: Stephens' claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to numerous instances of improper conduct by the prosecutor also fails. As the Florida Supreme Court explained In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on these grounds, Stephens must first show that the comments were improper or objectionable and that there was no tactical reason for failing to object. Secondly, Stephens must demonstrate that the comments deprived the defendant of a fair and impartial trial, materially contribute[d] to the conviction, [were] so harmful or fundamentally tainted as to require a new trial, or [were] so inflammatory that they might have influenced the jury to reach a more severe verdict than that it would have otherwise. Spencer v. State, 645 So.2d 377, 383 (Fla.1994). The trial court found that none of the comments was so prejudicial that Stephens was denied a fair trial, and we agree. When read in context, these comments were not improper and did not deprive Stephens of a fair trial. Stephens II, 975 So.2d at 420 (alterations in original). The Florida Supreme Court determined that the comments of the prosecutor were not a sufficient basis to reverse the conviction. Because the alleged comments were not improper, Stephens fails to show that he was prejudiced under Strickland. Stephens II, 975 So.2d at 421. We cannot say that the state court's determination that Stephens was not prejudiced by counsel's lack of objection was unreasonable or contrary to clearly established federal law.