The first claim in Moore’s 8.850 motion alleged that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object when the State introduced a firearm taken from her home into evidence, along with photographs of other firearms that had been stored in her home. In summarily denying this claim, the trial court confusingly reasons that this “evidence was relevant, and Counsel clarified that none of the firearms found inside the Defendant’s residence could have fired the caliber of projectile recovered from the victim.” (emphasis added) Of course, if there was no evidence linking any of these firearms to the charged crime, evidence of the firearms would be irrelevant, and should have been excluded upon proper objection. See, e.g., Sosa v. State, 639 So.2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>); Huhn v. State, 511 So.2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA
holding there was no rule 404b violation where the evidence was admitted to show knowledge and knowledge was an element of the crime charged holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime holding that it was error to admit into evidence 880 cartridges found in defendants car where there was no link established between the cartridges and the crime charged holding that it was error to admit into evidence a gun purchased by the defendant which was not connected with the charged crimes holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder