above, the jury is responsible for resolving conflicts in the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. Brown, 796 So.2d at 227 (¶ 12). Furthermore, “[f]actual disputes are properly resolved by a jury and do not mandate a new trial.” Ealey v. State, 158 So.3d 283, 293 (¶ 31) (Miss.2015). This issue has no merit. XII. Prosecutorial Misconduct ¶70. In this issue, Gray claims the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony, but there is no support for his claim. Additionally, Gray claims the prosecution made inappropriate comments during its closing argument. However, Gray did not object at any time during the prosecution’s closing argument. As an appellate court, we have no original jurisdiction to review this issue. See Milano v. State, 790 So.2d 179, 189 (¶ 47) (Miss.2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this issue is procedurally
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 a prosecutorialmisconduct claim was procedurally barred when raised for the first time on appeal holding that a habeas claim is procedurally barred where it was already raised on direct appeal and decided on the merits by this court holding that the caldwell claim is procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal but was not holding that a caldwell claim is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal