prison records; and review the penalty phase testimony of the eight witnesses who testified to Troy’s prison behavior. Had Galemore acquired such personal knowledge, Troy maintains, he would have been able to draw upon Troy’s past experience to project what his future prison experience would be while serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. He contends further that an eviden-tiary hearing on the matter was warrant-, ed. We disagree. First, a defendant’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because of counsel’s failure to present mitigation evidence will not be sustained where the jury was aware of most aspects of the mitigation evidence that the defendant claims should have been presented. See Van Poyck v. State, 694 So.2d 686, 692-93 (Fla.1997) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that in this case the jury was
holding that trial counsels performance in failing to object move to strike or request an admonishment of the jury with respect to the defendants criminal history was deficient and that it could not be said that the references to the defendants criminal history did not impact the jurys decision where the evidence was not overwhelming and reversing for a new trial holding that the trial counsels performance was constitutionally deficient where counsel made a limited investigation into the petitioners background did not prepare a social history of the petitioner and was not aware that he had been sexually abused and raped as a child holding where defense counsel argued that the prosecution had not presented the testimony of a law enforcement agent because it would have been favorable to the accused the prosecutor properly argued in rebuttal that clark could have called the agent as a witness on his own holding that trial counsel was not deficient in the presentation of defendants life history during the penalty phase because the jury was aware of most aspects of the defendants life that the defendant argued should have been presented holding that the prior conviction was valid for calculation of the defendants criminal history because his waiver of the right to counsel was valid