of parole. While much of the testimony on the defendant’s probable future conduct came from close family members, the record reflects that other witnesses testified to Troy’s future prison behavior. We also note that the trial court addressed parole ineligibility during the penalty phase, instructing the jury that gain time does not apply when a defendant is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Second, we have held that a defendant’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because of counsel’s failure to present witnesses in mitigation will not be sustained where the sentencing judge was aware of many of the mitigating factors that the defendant claims on appeal should have been presented. See Lightbourne v. State, 471 So.2d 27, 28 (Fla.1985) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the record reflects that the
holding that counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to pursue a particular mitigating factor where despite a reasonable investigation by counsel counsel was not put on notice of any such mitigating evidence holding that because appellant had waived review of constitutional challenge to sentencing statute by failing to raise it at the first opportunity the trial court correctly proceeded to examine whether the appellants trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise constitutional challenges to the sentencing statutes holding counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing because the trial record clearly indicated that the sentencing judge was aware of many of the mitigators that counsel was presenting to this court on appeal