performance. See Pietri v. State, 885 So.2d 245, 256 (Fla.2004) (“[A] court considering a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel ‘need not make a specific ruling on the performance component of the test when it is clear that the prejudice component is not satisfied.’ ”) (quoting Maxwell v. Wainwright, 490 So.2d 927, 932 (Fla.1986)). Accordingly, we deny relief. III. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Anthony also petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, raising four claims. The first of these claims contains several subparts. However, most of these issues are procedurally barred or legally insufficient, and therefore we deny them without discussion. Other claims present merely eonclusory arguments insufficient to state an issue. See Asay v. Moore, 828 So.2d 985, 990 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>); Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1069
holding that the postconviction court erred in finding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim proeedurally barred because the courts opinion did not comment specifically on the ineffective counsel argument and the overall holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jurys verdict could not be viewed as an adjudication on the merits of the ineffective assistance claim recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate holding a claim proce durally barred because it was insufficiently pled as the petitioner failed to phrase the argument as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel holding defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because any evidentiary error was harmless