in the abstract where the State believes the evidence would support such factors. Wyatt’s argument assumes that the discussion of legal theories in the abstract will bias the jurors and cause them to presume such circumstances transpired in the case before them. However, as Wyatt recognizes, after counsel objected, the trial judge explicitly instructed the jurors that such circumstances did not necessarily occur in this ease. Even if the statement had been improper, however, Wyatt failed to establish prejudice — that “appellate counsel’s deficiency ‘compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the correctness of the result.’ ” Rutherford, 774 So.2d at 643 (quoting Thompson, 759 So.2d at 660); see, e.g., Bell v. State, 965 So.2d 48, 78-79 (Fla.2007) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we deny this claim. D. Failure to
holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that the defendant failed to establish his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge a ruling pertaining to an isolated comment that was made during voir dire before the presentation of evidence even began holding that defense counsel may decide whether to consent to voir dire proceedings before a federal magistrate holding that because the defendant failed to make any objection at the close of voir dire he waived his batson claim holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel