Accordingly, there is no reasonable probability that, had Dr. Eisenstein testified during the penalty phase or the Spencer hearing, the jury would have recommended or the trial court would have imposed a life sentence, and our confidence in the outcome of the penalty phase has not been undermined. Therefore, Turner has not satisfied the second prong of Strickland. In light of the foregoing, we hold that Turner’s trial counsel were not ineffective and affirm the postconviction court’s denial of relief on this claim. Death Penalty Challenges The remaining claims presented by Turner involve challenges to the death penalty in Florida. Each of these challenges is either waived, procedurally barred, meritless, or premature. See, e.g., Jones v. State, 928 So.2d 1178, 1182 n. 5 (Fla.2006) (<HOLDING>); Rigterink v. State, 66 So.3d 866, 897
holding that a caldwell claim is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal holding that a challenge to the constitutionality of execution meth ods is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal holding that a similar claim in a rule 32 petition was procedurally barred because it was raised at trial and because it was raised on direct appeal holding that a habeas claim is procedurally barred where it was already raised on direct appeal and decided on the merits by this court holding that claims raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred from consideration in a rule 3850 motion