about the Nonoxynol theory while reading the book, which he then presented to his counsel. Conversely, Overton’s counsel both testified that they were never given the book by Overton. Instead, they testified that the Nonoxynol theory was first brought to their attention by Dr. Wright. The testimony of Overton’s counsel is corroborated by Ellsworth, who testified that neither Smith nor Garcia ever gave him the book. Instead, Ellsworth actually informed defense counsel that the Nonoxynol theory was in the book. The book was part of the State’s case file only because the book belonged to Ellsworth. The record does not support Overton’s assertion that an actual conflict existed; therefore, there is no need to conduct further analysis. See Wright v. State, 857 So.2d 861, 872 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this ineffective assistance
recognizing the conflict holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance due to the alleged conflict of interest because the defendant failed to demonstrate a conflict as nothing was presented to refute the attorneys testimony that his loyalty was to his clients holding that to demonstrate that a conflict of interest violated his sixth amendment rights a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyers performance holding that a conflict of interest independent of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel  constitute cause where the conflict caused the attorney to interfere with the petitioners right to pursue his  1 claim