sloppy collection techniques of Dr. Pope in other cases, was also correct. As discussed above, Overton’s claim that the State did not provide notes from brainstorming sessions is insufficiently pled because it is based on pure speculation. See Gore, 846 So.2d at 466-67. Additionally, as discussed above, Overton’s claim that the S istance due to a rule of professional conduct that prevents the interviewing of jurors, has no merit and was facially invalid. During the Huff hearing, Over-ton’s counsel stipulated that this was the particular rule in place and that this was a purely legal issue. The claim is proeedurally barred because it could have been asserted on direct appeal and is now being couched in terms of ineffective assistance. See Arbelaez v. State, 775 So.2d 909, 920 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, this Court has previously
holding claim of deprivation of right to competent mental health evaluation was procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal holding that the defendants habeas claim was procedurally barred because it could have been or was raised in his postconviction motion holding that the claim of not being able to interview jurors was procedurally barred because the claim should and could have been raised on direct appeal holding that a caldwell claim is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal holding that the caldwell claim is procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal but was not