did occur and there was no match. Detective Daniels testified that the partial palm prints did not match with those of Overton. Second, Overton’s counsel did properly address the testimony of Dr. Nelms by presenting Dr. Wright as a defense expert. Wright expressed the opinion that it was possible that the murders occurred elsewhere and that there was more than one perpetrator. Thus, these claims were legally insufficient on their face. Contrary to Overton’s arguments, an evidentiary hearing was in fact granted 'on the allegations in paragraph 34 of the petition directed to counsels failure to prompt ly denied. As we have explained, all of Overton’s claims of error have been rejected which renders this cumulative error claim moot. See Marshall v. State, 854 So.2d 1235, 1252 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>). Claim XI, directed to a lack of effective
holding that a remand and possibly an evidentiary hearing was necessary for reconsideration of the plaintiffs claim for injuries allegedly caused by the states negligent failure to maintain a public highway because court of appeals could not tell whether parties presented and court considered all relevant evidence on the issue holding that a remand for an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary in part because the record negated the possibility that counsels omission was strategic holding that the claim of cumulative error was rendered moot because all claims were rejected but one for which an evidentiary hearing would occur on remand holding that the defendant was entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his claim of immunity based on selfdefense holding that such statements were not even enough for an evidentiary hearing