should have provided documentation of Dr. Pope’s sloppy collection techniques clearly could not meet the prejudice requirement under Brady. Thus, these two issues were legally insufficient on their face. Claim VII, which alleged that Overton’s counsel was ineffective for the failure to object to the jury instruction on the testimony of expert witnesses, was correctly denied as facially invalid. During the Huff hearing, Overton’s counsel stipulated that this particular jury instruction was the standard expert jury instruction and that this legal issue could be determined without an evidentiary hearing. Failure to object to a standard jury instruction is not ineffective assistance here. See Elledge v. State, 911 So.2d 57, 77 (Fla.2005); Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650, 665 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). Claim VIII, directed to a lack of effective
holding that where jury has been properly instructed counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to an instruction holding that counsel could have reasonably determined that the trial court would not sustain a rule 403 objection therefore counsels failure to object to this evidence was not deficient performance holding that it was not deficient for counsel to fail to object to a standard instruction that had not been invalidated by this court holding that it was prejudicial error to fail to give such a cautionary instruction even where the defendant did not object at trial to the lack of such an instruction when the accomplice testimony was uncorroborated holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel