decided at trial and on direct appeal.” Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3) (Supp.1994). We must caution that other issues which were either presented through direct appeal or could have been presented on direct appeal or at trial are procedurally barred and cannot be relitigated under the guise of poor representation by counsel. Foster, 687 So.2d 1124, 1129 (Miss.1996). I. Mississippi’s lethal injection procedure creates a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ¶ 6. King failed to raise this issue at trial or on direct appeal. Therefore, this claim is procedurally barred by Mississippi Code Section 99-39-21(1) as set out above. However, notwithstanding the procedural bar, this claim is without merit pursuant to Bennett v. State, 990 So.2d 155, 161 (Miss.2008) (<HOLDING>) (citing Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 128 S.Ct.
holding that a prison official can violate a prisoners eighth amendment rights by failing to intervene holding that the mandatory lifeimprisonment enhancement provision in  841 does not violate the eighth amendment holding that forfeitures may violate the eighth amendment excessive fines clause holding that the fifteen year minimum sentence imposed under section 924e does not violate the eighth amendment holding that mississippis lethal injection protocol does not violate the eighth amendment