this demonstrated jury impartiality has been rebutted. See Rolling, 695 So.2d at 286 (discussing that although not dispositive, assurances from prospective jurors that they are impartial despite their extrinsic knowledge support the presumption of a jury’s impartiality). Moreover, Overton does not and cannot contend that any of the prospective jurors who stated they could not be impartial due to their extrinsic knowledge actually entered the jury box as a member of the venire. Instead, it appears from the record that the trial court was able to obtain a jury of impartial jurors from an even greater pool of prospective jurors who confirmed that they could be impartial. Thus, there is no established prejudice that resulted from any of the pretrial publicity. See Rivera, 859 So.2d at 511 (<HOLDING>). It is reasonable to conclude that the
holding that to show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because any evidentiary error was harmless holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim holding that the defendant waived the issue of change of venue where the trial court denied the motion for a change of venue without prejudice stating that it was willing to reconsider the motion at any time during the jury selection process but the defendant never renewed the motion for a change of venue holding that there was no ineffective assistance due to appellate counsels failure to challenge the trial courts denial of the motion to change venue because the defendant failed to show actual prejudice