tance due to a failure to object to the introduction of time-barred offenses (the burglary charge), and Claim XII, which claimed that Overton’s death sentences were unconstitutional under Ring, were both properly denied without an evidentia-ry hearing. Overton’s posteonvietion counsel conceded that these were purely legal issues that did not require an evidentiary hearing. Moreover, as previously developed, no prejudice resulted from the introduction of the burglary charge, which the trial court correctly recognized in denying the evidentiary hearing. Additionally, the claim that Overton’s death sentences violated Ring was clearly without merit because this Court has previously held that Ring cannot receive retroactive application. See Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>). Thus, these claims were legally insufficient
holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review holding that ring does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the ring decision holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida in postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision