A defendant has the constitutional right to decline to testify against himself in a criminal proceeding. See U.S. Const, amend. V; art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. Therefore, “[a]ny comment on, or which is fairly susceptible of being interpreted as referring to, a defendant’s failure to testify is error and is strongly discouraged.” State v. Marshall, 476 So.2d 150, 153 (Fla.1985); see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.250 (prosecuting attorney prohibited from commenting on the defendant’s failure to testify on his or her behalf). The “fairly susceptible” test is a “very liberal rule.” Dessaure v. State, 891 So.2d 455 (Fla.2004). Defense counsel’s failure to object to an improper comment by the prosecution may serve as a basis for a post-conviction claim. Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366, 385 (Fla.2007) (<HOLDING>). Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal
holding that it was not deficient for counsel to fail to object to a standard instruction that had not been invalidated by this court holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel holding the defendant had stated an arguable basis for finding counsel deficient for failing to object to improper prosecutorial comments holding trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to unadjudicated extraneous offenses in a psi report holding that counsel was not deficient for failing to make an objection that lacked merit