that “there were times ... where [Jeffrey] would have ... this dark side.” When this happened, she said, “he would ... get an attitude. He ... deliberately pick[ed] fights with somebody or ... would ... storm out of the house.” He picked fights with Anthony and usually won. She recounted certain instances in which Jeffrey punched walls and doors. She also stated that, unlike Anthony, Jeffrey owned a gun and collected knives. She concluded that “Jeffrey usually was the leader.” Anthony usually gave in to his wishes. Griffith’s testimony and portions of O’Neill’s testimony are cumulative to the evidence presented at the resentencing. We have held that counsel does not render ineffective assistance by failing to present cumulative evidence. See Cole v. State, 841 So.2d 409, 425 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>) (citing Valle v. State, 705 So.2d 1331,
holding prior use of one type of drug is not relevant to establish use of another type of drug on a different occasion holding that additional witnesses were not needed to corroborate the defendants drug abuse problems because counsel had already introduced sufficient evidence of drug use holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence holding the use of a drug that carries a higher sentence rather than another drug does not amount to sentencing factor manipulation holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade