themselves clearly improper. Not content to stay within the. proper bounds of argument that the lack of D earney v. State, 846 So.2d 618, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Initially, the prosecutor responded to the defense’s insinuations by pointing out that no one knew the results of the DNA tests; by emphasizing the length of time it takes to obtain DNA test results; and by downplaying the probative value of the potential DNA evidence in the facts of the case. These arguments were an appropriate response. But the prosecutor did not stop there. The prosecutor exceeded the scope of a fair reply by suggesting the defendant was exercising his right to a speedy trial to prevent possibly incriminating evidence from coming forward. See Hazelwood v. State, 658 So.2d. 1241, 1243-44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>). Without much difficulty, we hold the trial
holding that where movant alleged the names of uncalled witnesses and them anticipated testimony which would have been relevant mitigation evidence in the penalty phase but did not allege that trial counsel knew of the witnesses or that the witnesses were available to testify at trial the movant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction relief motion because he did not allege facts sufficient to satisfy the standard applicable to his claim recognizing that ineffective assistance claims based on uncalled witnesses require a heavy showing by the petitioner because the court is forced to make a hypothetical determination of how an uncalled witness may have testified holding that the prosecutors explanation of a defendants subpoena power was a fair reply to defense counsel questioning the absence of testimony from certain witnesses but going a step further to claim uncalled witnesses would bolster the states case exceeded the boundaries of a fair reply holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding a prosecutors comments indicating his personal belief in the states witnesses was a fair reply to defense counsels attack on the veracity of the states witnesses