at 506. “The State, as the beneficiary of the Giglio violation, bears the burden to prove that the presentation of false testimony at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. Giglio claims present mixed questions of law and fact. Accordingly, this Court defers to those factual findings supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviews de novo the application of the law to the facts. Green v. State, 975 So.2d 1090, 1106 (Fla. 2008). We reject Parker’s summarily presented claim that the prosecutor’s statement during resentencing — that the gist of the notice and the agreement were the same — was “tantamount to a Brady violation,” as well as a violation of Giglio. This claim was not presented to the post-conviction court. Thus, it is procedurally barred. See id. at 1104 (<HOLDING>). We now consider Parker’s Brady claim. To meet
holding that a caldwell claim is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal holding that a similar claim in a rule 32 petition was procedurally barred because it was raised at trial and because it was raised on direct appeal holding that claim is procedurally barred because it was neither raised in greens 3851 motion nor addressed by the trial court holding that the defendants habeas claim was procedurally barred because it could have been or was raised in his postconviction motion holding that the caldwell claim is procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal but was not