preceding a victim’s almost instantaneous death may be considered as contributing to the heinous nature of the capital felony.... From defendant’s statement we find the victim was ‘screaming’ prior to death. A frightened eight-year-old girl being strangled by an adult man should certainly be described as heinous, atrocious, and cruel.”). Accordingly, we find beyond a reasonable doubt that the HAC aggravator would have been found with a proper instruction. Issue three is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request to interview jurors under rule 4-3.5(d)(4), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. This issue is proeedurally barred because it could have and should have been raised on direct appeal. See Brown v. State, 755 So.2d 616, 620 n. 4, 621 n. 7 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>); Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509, 512 n. 5, 513
holding same issue to be procedurally barred for abovestated reason holding that successive motions for postconviction relief are procedurally barred holding as procedurally barred an initial postconviction claim alleging juror misconduct holding that defendant was procedurally barred from raising issue on appeal where issue was listed as grounds in motion for new trial holding that a prosecutorialmisconduct claim was procedurally barred when raised for the first time on appeal