Opinion ID: 3161556
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prosecutorial Arguments

Text: 11. See Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 3(B)(7)(a) (stating that a “judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications” except where required “for scheduling, administrative purposes, or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits”). - 25 - In his final ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, Orme argues appellate counsel should have argued for reversal of his sentence based on allegedly improper comments during closing argument. Most of the comments to which Orme objects were proper and thus, would not be the basis for a successful argument on appeal. Additionally, resentencing phase counsel did not object to any of the comments; therefore, they are unpreserved and must constitute fundamental error to result in ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Walls, 926 So. 2d at 1176. “In order for improper comments made in the closing arguments of a penalty phase to constitute fundamental error, they must be so prejudicial as to taint the jury’s recommended sentence.” Id. As discussed in his claim of ineffective assistance of resentencing counsel, Orme has not demonstrated that the comments here rose to such level. Thus, appellate counsel was not deficient for not raising this meritless issue, Wyatt, 71 So. 3d at 112-13, and counsel’s failure to raise this claim does not undermine our confidence in the result of his appeal, Thompson, 759 So. 2d at 660. Therefore, we deny relief on this claim.