CURIAM. Affirmed. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Christopher v. State, 489 So.2d 22 (Fla.1986)(<HOLDING>); Duncan v. State, 728 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA
holding that defendants 3850 motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred as successive where the defendants current rule 3850 motion is one that could have or should have been raised in his first rule 3850 motion holding as procedurally barred an initial postconviction claim alleging juror misconduct holding that the defendants habeas claim was procedurally barred because it could have been or was raised in his postconviction motion holding that successive motions for postconviction relief are procedurally barred holding that a claim is proeedurally barred where it was not raised in the defendants motion for postconviction relief