those claims. We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order concerning Perry’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s improper closing argument, and we remand for further proceedings. In his motion, Perry argued that counsel’s inaction at closing prejudiced him because the failure to timely object to the prosecutor’s remarks, including the phrase that the defense witnesses were all a pack of liars, waived appellate review of the issue. In its order, the trial court found that this allegation should have been raised in Perry’s direct appeal. Additionally, the court found that the remarks were proper comments on the evidence. We disagree with both findings. See Henderson v. State, 727 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>). A claim that counsel was ineffective for
holding ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to object to prosecutors comments cognizable in postconviction motion since court unable to review on appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve error holding that the defendant failed properly to preserve assignment of error for appellate review because the trial court had no opportunity to consider the defendants contention as presented on appeal holding that appellant failed to preserve error because it did not present appellate complaint to trial court holding that the prosecutors improper remarks referring to the defendants exercise of his constitutional right to a trial by jury was not plain error requiring reversal holding that a prosecutors remarks referring to defense witnesses as a pack of liars were improper but not fundamental error court unable to review on appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve error