facially sufficient, the trial court must either deny this ground with the appropriate attachments or it must conduct an evidentiary hearing. We should observe that the only issue Mr. Nolan raised on direct appeal was the prejudicial conduct of the prosecutor. On direct appeal, most of that conduct could be reviewed only under the fundamental error rule because the alleged errors had not been preserved by objection. See State v. Anton, 700 So.2d 743, 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citing Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978)). Thus, the fact that prosecutorial misconduct was raised as fundamental error on direct appeal does not preclude Mr. Nolan from raising this related issue as a matter of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Perry v. State, 787 So.2d 67 at 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>) (citing Henderson v. State, 727 So.2d 284
holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal 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 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