a written opinion, the law of the case does not establish that this court rejected the claim on the merits. This court reversed the order summarily denying Corzo’s rule 3.850 motion, explaining: Because of the strict rules limiting claims for ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, the appellate courts typically reject the issue as both premature and requiring evidence beyond the appellate record. Accordingly, unless a direct appeal is affirmed with a written opinion that expressly addresses the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, an affirmance on direct appeal should rarely, if ever, be treated as a procedural bar to a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel on a postconviction motion. Id. at 645; see also Acosta v. State, 884 So.2d 278, 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>); Kam/pjf v. State, 443 So.2d 401, 402 (Fla.
holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal 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 defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record holding that the defendants ineffective assistance of counsel claims which were raised in a motion for a new trial and challenged on direct appeal were not barred in postconviction by the doctrine of res judicata because the defendants conviction and sentence were affirmed without a written opinion expressly addressing the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel holding that res judicata does not bar a defendant from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for the first time in a postcollateral proceeding if the defendant was represented by the same counsel at trial and on direct appeal or if an actual conflict of interest enjoined appellate counsel from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal