as a crime scene analyst. Since Richards did not exceed the scope of his qualifications as a crime scene analyst, attorney Smith could not have been deficient for failing to make an additional objection that Richards was testifying beyond his qualifications. Everett also has failed to show Strickland prejudice. Everett failed to present any evidence that Richards was unqualified, that the stains were not the victim’s blood stains, or that Richards testified incorrectly. Everett has not explained how objecting to Richards’ testimony would have improved his defense or undermined the State’s presentation. Because Everett did not present any evidence that Richards’ testimony was improperly inculpating, Everett’s claim is insufficient. See State v. Larzelere, 979 So.2d 195, 211 (Fla.2008) (<HOLDING>). The extensive evidence presented at trial
holding that a showing of actual prejudice was required where the defendant claimed that counsel was ineffective for conceding guilt at the guilt phase of a capital trial holding that trial counsels performance was not deficient for failing to give a mental health expert additional information because the expert testified at the evidentiary hearing that the collateral data would not have changed his testimony holding that where larzelere claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a concrete expert defendant failed to prove prejudice because she failed to show what a concrete expert would have testified to or how testimony would have cast doubt on her guilt holdingthat a defendant could not show prejudice based on his trial counsels alleged failure to thoroughly investigate the case and call potential witnesses because he made no proffer as to what additional investigation would have uncovered or what the witnesses would have said if they had testified holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care