suggestions. Mr. Sheffield responded that, in his professional judgment, it was not beneficial to challenge certain evidence, as Mr. Howell wished, because that evidence would later come in anyway. The trial court informed Mr. Howell that Mr. Sheffield’s approach was not uncommon in criminal cases and concluded that there was no need to appoint new counsel. Mr. Howell argues that these disputes with Mr. Sheffield over defense strategy created a conflict of interest, which made it necessary for the trial court to appoint new counsel. I disagree. At most, Mr. Howell has shown that he was dissatisfied with Mr. Sheffield’s strategic and tactical decisions. But dissatisfaction alone is not sufficient to create a conflict of interest. See Blanco v. Wainmight, 507 So.2d 1377, 1383 (Fla.1987) (<HOLDING>). Accord Oimen v. McCaughtry, 130 F.3d 809, 812
holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence holding that disagreements over whether to call certain witnesses did not constitute a conflict of interest holding that prosecutor free to comment on defendants failure to call certain witnesses or present certain testimony holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony on inmate code of silence to show witness bias and help explain why the government failed to call certain witnesses