to object to them does not mandate reversal for a new trial or new penalty phase. During the guilt phase closing argument, the prosecutor stated: “The lessers are a joke in this case ... but they have to be read to you by law.” The State contends that this statement was proper because the prosecutor was simply pointing out that the lesser included offense's were inconsistent with the facts of the case. The statement, however, goes beyond that and may reasonably be understood to be an attempt, through sarcasm, to diminish the jury’s obligation to follow the law. However, because the trial court properly and fully instructed the jury on the lesser included offenses, we find that Franqui has not met the prejudice prong of Strickland. See Anderson v. State, 18 So.3d 501, 517-18 (Fla.2009) (<HOLDING>). There is no reasonable probability that but
holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel recognizing that strickland applies to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims holding that the prejudice prong of strickland was not met in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the prosecutors misstatement of law where the trial court properly instructed the jury holding that where jury has been properly instructed counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to an instruction holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel