Opinion ID: 1940167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Claim 6: Combination of Procedural and Substantive Errors Deprived Duncan of a Fundamentally Fair Trial and Direct Appeal

Text: Duncan's final claim in his habeas petition is essentially a kitchen sink argument, in which Duncan is simply restating all the alleged errors that he previously claimed to have suffered during his trial and direct appeal. While he highlights that this Court held that it was error to admit a gruesome photograph of the 1969 murder victim during his penalty phase, we note that we held that error was harmless. See Duncan, 619 So.2d at 282. Having concluded that Duncan is entitled to a new penalty phase as a result of the ineffectiveness of his penalty phase counsel in failing to introduce available evidence in support of mental health mitigation, and further that none of the remaining individual claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel asserted in Duncan's 3.850 motion and habeas petition have merit, we hold that Duncan's claim of cumulative error must fail. [W]here individual claims of error alleged are either procedurally barred or without merit, the claim of cumulative error must fail. Griffin v. State, 866 So.2d 1, 22 (Fla.2003); see also Downs v. State, 740 So.2d 506, 509 n. 5 (Fla.1999).