cases should investigate and present mitigating evidence and that, under these Guidelines, trial counsel were ineffective. However, Bowles does not allege any specific ways in which trial counsel failed to meet the ABA Guidelines. Further, the Guidelines are not inconsistent with trial counsel's actions. Accordingly, we deny this claim. 4 . Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla.1993). 5 . See, e.g. Nixon v. State, 932 So.2d 1009, 1024 (Fla.2006) (Ring is not retroactive to cases that were final when it was issued); Rodgers v. State, 948 So.2d 655, 673 (Fla.2006) (rejecting Ring claim when one of aggravating factors is prior felony conviction; rejecting that Ring requires aggravators be alleged in indictment and a unanimous jury verdict); Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>); Blackwelder v. State, 851 So.2d 650, 654
holding ring is not retroactive in florida holding that the act is not retroactive holding retroactive application holding that the act is retroactive holding apprendi is not retroactive