investigate work alibi witnesses. In addition to the courts order reflecting that an evidentiary hearing was granted, there were numerous witnesses presented during the evidentiary hearing who were extensively questioned on the issue of a possible work alibi defense and whether Overton’s counsel pursued the theory. The challenge to counsel’s failure to present evidence of harassment of Overton by the Monroe County Sheriffs Office was also properly summarily denied. The trial court was correct- in con voir dire, was insufficiently pled to the trial court. Overton advanced only conclusory arguments that because the jury was not sequestered and his motion to change venue was denied, counsel must have been ineffective during voir dire. See Bryant v. State, 901 So.2d 810, 821-22 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>). Claim X, asserting cumulative error, was
holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case holding that a 3851 claim of ineffective assistance was legally insufficient where the motion did not allege the specific facts to which the witness would testify and how the lack of testimony prejudiced the case 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