hearing, multiple witnesses testified that there were no signs of significant degradation of the DNA evi dence. Therefore, the record does not support the contention that Overton’s counsel could have established a probability of tampering, which would have arguably led to an exclusion of both the STR DNA testing and the RFLP DNA testing results, had evidence been introduced during the Frye hearing with regard to the alleged broken chain of custody. Third, we conclude that the STR DNA testing completed at the Bode Lab meets the requirements of the Frye test. Under the first prong of the Frye test, there is strong evidence that the underlying scientific principle with STR DNA testing was generally accepted at the time of Overton’s trial in 1999. See McDonald, 952 So.2d at 495-96 (<HOLDING>). During the Frye hearing, Dr. Bever, who was
holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a frye hearing because there was general acceptance in the scientific community of the particular science at issue at the time of the defendants 1995 trial holding that trial counsel did not act unreasonably in failing to raise the issue of the defendants mental health at trial holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing because the trial record clearly indicated that the sentencing judge was aware of many of the mitigators that counsel was presenting to this court on appeal