consideration each of the aggravators listed in the statute; (4) the-procedure does not allow the independent reweighing of aggravators and mitigators; (5) the aggra-vators have been applied in a vague and inconsistent manner; (6) the statute ere- ates a “presumption of death” whereby if only one aggravator is present it can only be overcome by mitigating evidence so strong as to outweigh the aggravator; and (7) this “presumption of death” violates the Eighth Amendment in that the death penalty is not applied only to the worst offenders. ■ Troy is procedurally barred from raising this claim because the claim could have and should have been raised on direct appeal, but he failed to do so. See Miller, 926 So.2d at 1259-60; see also Jones v. State, 928 So.2d 1178, 1182-83 n. 5 (Fla.2006) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we have previously held similar
holding that similar claims challenging floridas death penalty statute are procedurally barred because they should have been raised on direct appeal holding that the caldwell claim is procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal but was not 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 the claim of not being able to interview jurors was procedurally barred because the claim should and could have been raised on direct appeal holding that claims raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred from consideration in a rule 3850 motion