has found fundamental error in Florida

2017Cf. Salazar, 188 So.3d at 822 (“[W]hen considered against the weight of all the other evidence presented, the comments ‘ “did not go to the heart of the case” [and] were not critical to the jury’s verdict.’”); cf. also Carroll, 815 So.2d at 622 (“[T]he prosecutor’s isolated comments were not as egregious or cumulative in scope as in cases where this Court has found fundamental error.”).

2008In Carroll v. State, 815 So.2d 601, 622 (Fla.2002), the Court addressed a habeas claim where the defendant asserted that *555 his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the prosecutor's improper arguments made during the penalty phase where the prosecutor stated that Carroll was the "boogie man" and a "creature that stalked the night" who "must die." This Court held that although the comments were improper and ill-advised, the comments were "not as egregious or cumulative in scope as in cases where this Court has found fundamental error." Id.

2005See, e.g., Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879, 900 (Fla.2000) (concluding *1128 that the prosecutor's comments were improper where the prosecutor characterized the codefendants as persons of "true deep-seated, violent character"; "people of longstanding violence"; "they commit violent, brutal crimes of violence"; "it's a character of violence"; "both of these defendants are men of longstanding violence, deep-seated violence, vicious violence, brutal violence, hard violence ... those defendants are violent to the core, violent in every atom of their body"); Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411 , 420 n. 9

2002See, e.g., Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla.2000); Ruiz v. State, 743 So.2d 1 (Fla.1999); Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411 (Fla.1998); Rhodes v. State, 547 So.2d 1201 (Fla.1989).

2021Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 566 (Fla. 2008) (“While a denial of counsel for an entire sentencing proceeding would constitute fundamental error, the temporary absence of counsel [during a victim impact statement] does not.”); see also Gonzalez v. State, 838 So. 2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (vacating an indigent appellant’s sentence and remanding for further resentencing after appellant was denied counsel).

2021Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 566 (Fla. 2008) (“While a denial of counsel for an entire sentencing proceeding would constitute fundamental error, the temporary absence of counsel [during a victim impact statement] does not.”); see also Gonzalez v. State, 838 So. 2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (vacating an indigent appellant’s sentence and remanding for further resentencing after appellant was denied counsel).

2017Cf. Salazar, 188 So.3d at 822 (“[W]hen considered against the weight of all the other evidence presented, the comments ‘ “did not go to the heart of the case” [and] were not critical to the jury’s verdict.’”); cf. also Carroll, 815 So.2d at 622 (“[T]he prosecutor’s isolated comments were not as egregious or cumulative in scope as in cases where this Court has found fundamental error.”).

2008Likewise, in Moore v. State, 820 So.2d 199, 207 (Fla.2002), this Court addressed a postconviction claim which alleged that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to object to two different occasions where the prosecutor called the defendant "the devil." Id.

2008Likewise, in Moore v. State, 820 So.2d 199, 207 (Fla.2002), this Court addressed a postconviction claim which alleged that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to object to two different occasions where the prosecutor called the defendant "the devil." Id.