their home by anyone, and that he had opened and tampered with drawers and closets inside the home before being discovered. On appeal, Preston asserted that the prosecutor asked an argumentative question during Preston’s cross-examination, to which an objection was taken and sustained. He further argued that the prosecutor made improper comments during closing argument, which were not objected to but which constituted fundamental error. We affirmed without opinion. Preston v. State, 17 So.3d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). As his first ground for relief, Preston again argues that some of the prosecutor’s comments during his cross-examination and during the State’s closing argument constituted fundamental error. We will not revisit this issue. See Turner v. Dugger, 614 So.2d 1075 (Fla.1992) (<HOLDING>); Right v. Dugger, 574 So.2d 1066 (Fla.1990)
recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel recognizing appellate court will not revisit issues or variations thereof presented under the guise of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel recognizing that ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims not premised on procedurally barred claims can be raised for the first time on appeal by new appellate counsel and are not limited to habeas review recognizing that strickland applies to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims holding that appellate counsel could not be found to have rendered ineffective assistance for failing to raise issues that are without merit