of the DNA evidence lacks any evidentiary support. During the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Libby testified that he could not make the determination that degradation in fact resulted with the DNA evidence here. Moreover, Dr. Bever testified that Over-ton’s DNA was a match and those samples “did not show any significant signs of degradation.” The evidence established that there were no signs of even minor degradation. Additionally, Dr. Pollock testified that degradation was not an issue here as any degradation was only a minor amount, which was insignificant to his opinion and examinations. The speculation by Overton that degradation must have occurred during the preindictment delay does not satisfy the actual prejudice requirement. See Maharaj v. State, 778 So.2d 944, 951 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). Under the second element, there was
holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised on direct appeal when the facts supporting the claim are presented on the face of the record holding that the postconviction court erred in finding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim proeedurally barred because the courts opinion did not comment specifically on the ineffective counsel argument and the overall holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jurys verdict could not be viewed as an adjudication on the merits of the ineffective assistance claim holding that the ineffective assistance claim was without merit because the conclusions to support the claim were sheer speculation and pjostconviction relief cannot be based on speculation or possibility recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel