Full opinion text
ORDER KOVACHEVICH, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Petitioner Martin E. Grossman (Grossman’s) amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus (hereinafter “petition”) and memorandum in support of the amended petition (Doc. Nos. 49 and 48, respectively); Respondent’s response to the petition (Doe. No. 57); and Grossman’s reply to the response. (Doc. No. 59). Grossman is a Florida prisoner under penalty of death challenging his conviction and sentence entered by the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County, Florida. A review of the petition, the response, the reply, and the entire record demonstrates that Grossman’s petition for writ of habeas corpus must be DENIED: BACKGROUND Grossman and a companion, Thayne Taylor, drove to a wooded area of Pinellas County, Florida, on the night of December 13, 1984, to shoot a handgun that Gross-man had recently obtained by burglarizing a home. Grossman lived in neighboring Pasco County at his mother’s home and was on probation following a recent prison term. Wildlife Officer Margaret (Peggy) Park, patrolling the area in her vehicle, happened on the scene and became suspicious. She left her vehicle with the motor, lights, and flashers on, and took possession of Grossman’s weapon and driver’s license. Grossman pleaded with her not to turn him in because having a weapon in his possession and being outside of Pasco County would cause him to return to prison for violation of probation. Officer Park refused Grossman’s plea, opened the driver’s door to her vehicle and picked up the radio microphone to call the sheriffs office. Grossman grabbed the officer’s large flashlight and struck her repeatedly on the head and shoulders, forcing her upper body into the vehicle. Officer Park reported “I’m hit” over the radio and screamed. Grossman continued the attack, and called for help from Taylor, who joined in the assault. Officer Park managed to draw her weapon, a .357 magnum handgun, and fired a wild shot within the vehicle. Simultaneously, she temporarily disabled Taylor by kicking him in the groin. Gross-man, who is a large man, wrestled the officer’s weapon away from her and fired a fatal shot into the back of her head. The spent slug exited her head in front and fell into a drinking cup inside the vehicle. Blood stains, high velocity splatters, the location of the spent slug, and the entry and exit wounds show that the victim’s upper body was inside the vehicle with her face turned inward or downward at the moment she was killed. Grossman and Taylor retrieved Gross-man’s handgun and driver’s license, and fled with those objects and the officer’s weapon. They returned to Grossman’s home, where they told the story of the killing, individually and collectively, to Brian Hancock, a friend who lived with the Grossmans. Hancock and Taylor buried the two weapons nearby. Grossman, who was covered with blood, attempted unsuccessfully to burn his clothes and shoes which Taylor later disposed of in a nearby lake. Approximately a week later, Grossman and Taylor, individually and collectively, recounted the story of the murder to another friend, Brian Allan. Approximately eleven days after the murder, Hancock told the police, and Grossman and Taylor were arrested. Taylor, upon his arrest, recounted the story of the murder to a policeman and, later, Grossman told the story to a jailmate, Charles Brewer. Grossman and Taylor were tried jointly, over Grossman’s objection. At trial, the state introduced the testimony of Hancock, Allan, and Brewer against Grossman. The state also introduced Taylor’s statement to the policeman against Taylor only. In addition, the state introduced the charred shoes, the two weapons, prints taken from the victim’s vehicle, testimony from a neighbor who observed the attempted burning of the clothes, Grossman’s efforts to clean the Grossman van, and the changing of the tires on the Grossman van. Expert testimony as to the cause of death and the significance of blood splatter evidence were also introduced by the state. The jury was instructed that Taylor’s admissions to the policeman could only be used against Taylor, not Grossman. The jury was instructed on premeditation and felony murder based on robbery, burglary, and escape. A general verdict of first-degree murder was returned against Grossman. Taylor was found guilty of third-degree murder. The judge followed the jury’s unanimous recommendation that Grossman be sentenced to death. See Grossman v. State, 525 So.2d 833 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1071, 109 S.Ct. 1354, 103 L.Ed.2d 822 (1989), and Grossman v. Dugger, 708 So.2d 249 (Fla.1997), in which the Florida Supreme Court set out the facts of the case. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On January 18, 1985, Grossman was charged by Indictment with the first degree murder of Margaret Park. (Ex. A, Vl/9). Trial was held October 22-31, 1985, before the Honorable Crockett Far-nell, Circuit Judge. (Ex. A, V8-V14). The jury found Grossman guilty as charged. (Ex. A, V2/222; V15/2564). Following the penalty phase, a jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of 12-O. (Ex. A, V2/250; V15/27 13). On March 19, 1986, Judge Farnell entered his written order containing findings of fact in support of Grossman’s death sentence. (Ex. A, V2/289-90). The state trial court judge found three aggravating factors: 1) the murder was committed during the course of a robbery or burglary; 2) the murder was committed to avoid arrest and hinder law enforcement; and, 3) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. The court rejected the proposed mitigating factor of Grossman’s age, which was 19 years at the time of the murder, and determined that no mitigating factors existed. In his direct appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, Grossman raised the following issues for review: (1) denial of motion to sever; (2) denial of motion to suppress evidence; (S) dilution of jury’s sentencing responsibility; (4) denial of motion to continue trial; (5) presence of cameras in courtroom and release of videotape to media; (6) denial of request for records on victim and admission of evidence regarding victim’s demeanor and prior conduct; (7) admission of evidence regarding prior crimes and bad acts by Grossman; (8) admission of photographs from crime scene and autopsy; (9) admission of physical evidence (clothes); (10) admission of blood spatter testimony; (11) instructions to the jury regarding felony murder; (12) sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction; (13) denial of defendant’s requested jury instruction regarding accomplice testimony; (14) denial of defendant’s requested jury instructions regarding penalty phase; (15) sufficiency of the evidence to support findings regarding aggravating and mitigating factors; (16) trial court’s failure to file timely sentencing order; (17) denial of motions to dismiss the indictment based on unconstitutionality of death penalty; and (18) trial court’s allowing family members to testify as to victim impact evidence. (Ex. B). The parties filed supplemental briefs pertaining to Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987) (victim impact evidence). (Ex. E — Ex.F). After the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Grossman’s conviction and sentence, Grossman v. State, 525 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1988), Grossman sought certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari. Grossman v. Florida, 489 U.S. 1071, 109 S.Ct. 1354, 103 L.Ed.2d 822 (1989). (Ex. H — Ex. K). Governor Bob Martinez signed a death warrant in Grossman’s case on March 8, 1990. The execution was stayed by the Florida Supreme Court on April 5, 1990. On August 13, 1990, Grossman filed his Rule 3.850 Motion to Vacate Judgment of Conviction and Sentence in the state trial court. (Ex. L, V1/58-V2/394); an eviden-tiary hearing was held May 31 — June 2, 1994. (Ex. L, V11/1963-V15/2679), and the state trial court denied the Rule 3.850 motion on October 2, 1995. (Ex. L, V16/2822-2838). In his appeal from the denial of the Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief, Grossman raised the following issues: (1) ineffectiveness of counsel at the penalty phase; (2) failure to disclose exculpatory, material evidence; (3) witness acted as state agent in violation of defendant’s right to counsel; (4) ineffectiveness of counsel at guilt phase; (5) ineffectiveness of counsel for mental health examination; (6) vagueness of “heinous, atrocious or cruel” (HAC) aggravating factor; (7) counsel operating under conflict of interest; (8) right to be present at trial; (9) prosecutorial misconduct; (10) trial court’s alleged failure to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors. (Ex. M). The Florida Supreme Court rejected these claims on December 18, 1997, and affirmed the denial of Rule 3.850 relief. Grossman v. Dugger, 708 So.2d 249 (Fla.1997). (Ex. S). That court specifically found Arguments 6 through 10 to be procedurally barred. 708 So.2d at 252, n. 6. In the same opinion, the Florida Supreme Court denied Grossman’s state petition for writ of habeas corpus, which had been pending since April 1990. That petition for writ of habeas corpus raised the following issues: (1) ineffectiveness of counsel on appeal; (2) reconsideration of prior Caldwell v. Mississippi claim; (3) reconsideration of prior claims challenging adequacy of the sentencing order. (Ex. P). Grossman then timely filed a federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on September 18, 1998. That petition was stricken and returned to Grossman. The order striking the petition was modified on February 10, 1999, and Grossman filed a petition in response to that modified order on March 10, 1999. Subsequently, Respondent filed a response to that petition on February 25, 2002, and Grossman filed a reply on March 21, 2002. Thereafter, on July 22, 2002, this case was administratively closed pending the outcome of two Florida cases that raised Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) issues. (See Doc. No. 25). On August 14, 2003, Gross-man filed a successive state habeas petition. (Ex. T). Following the filing of a response and reply, the Florida Supreme Court rejected that petition in a one-sentence order issued May 7, 2004. (Ex. U— Ex. W). Grossman filed a motion for rehearing on May 19, 2004. That motion was denied on July 15, 2004. (Ex. X — Ex. y)- On July 26, 2004, Grossman’s federal proceeding was reopened, and Grossman filed the presently pending petition on August 25, 2004. Grossman raises the following grounds for relief, (as stated by Gross-man): Ground One THE FAILURE TO SEVER MR. GROSSMAN’S TRIAL FROM THAT OF A NON-TESTIFYING CO-DEFENDANT AFTER IT WAS REQUESTED, WHERE THE CO-DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION AND STATEMENTS WERE ADMITTED AT THEIR JOINT TRIAL, DENIED MR. GROSSMAN THE RIGHT OF CROSS EXAMINATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. Ground Two THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN REPRESENTING THE CO-DEFENDANT, THAYNE TAYLOR, BECAUSE THE OFFICE HAD PREVIOUSLY INTERVIEWED MR. GROSSMAN AND HAD ACCESS TO PRIVILEGED INFORMATION WHICH WAS USED IN THE DEFENSE OF MR. TAYLOR AGAINST MR. GROSSMAN IN A JOINT TRIAL, IN VIOLATION OF THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. Ground Three THE SENTENCING COURT BY FAILING TO PROPERLY AND TIMELY STATE THE REASONS FOR IMPOSING A SENTENCE OF DEATH, EITHER ORALLY OR IN WRITING, VIOLATED MR. GROSS-MAN’S RIGHTS UNDER THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. Ground Four REFUSING TO GIVE DEFENDANT’S REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, THAT THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE SHOULD BE RECEIVED BY THE JURY WITH GREAT CAUTION, AND OTHER SPECIAL PENALTY PHASE INSTRUCTIONS, VIOLATED THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. Ground Five MR. GROSSMAN’S SENTENCING JURY WAS MISLED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND THE STATE’S ARGUMENT THAT DILUTED THEIR SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY IN THE SENTENCING PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. Ground Six MR. GROSSMAN WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON DIRECT APPEAL FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUES WHICH CONSTITUTED CLEARLY REVERSIBLE ERROR IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Ground Seven THE STATE WITHHELD MATERIAL AND EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Ground Eight MR. GROSSMAN WAS DENIED HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHEN THE STATE KNOWINGLY EXPLOITED AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION MR. GROSSMAN OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL, OBTAINING INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS. Ground Nine MR. GROSSMAN WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT THE PENALTY PHASE OF HIS TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Ground Ten MR. GROSSMAN’S DEATH SENTENCE WAS TAINTED BY CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON AGGRAVATING FACTORS, AND IMPROPER APPLICATION OF THOSE AGGRAVATING FACTORS IN VIOLATION OF HIS EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Ground Eleven DENIAL OF MR. GROSSMAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT BASED ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, BOTH FACIALLY AND AS APPLIED, OF SECTION 921.141, FLORIDA STATUTES, VIOLATED THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. Ground Twelve MR. GROSSMAN’S SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DENIED HIS COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE. Ground Thirteen ADMITTING STATE’S PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE GORY AND GRUESOME VIOLATED MR. GROSSMAN’S SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL. Ground Fourteen THE COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE STATE TO INTRODUCE VICTIM IMPACT AND VICTIM CHARACTER EVIDENCE AT TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF MR. GROSSMAN’S SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Ground Fifteen FLORIDA’S CAPITAL SENTENCING STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE AND AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT FAILS TO PREVENT THE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY, AND IT VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, VIOLATING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Ground Sixteen MR. GROSSMAN WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO SUBJECT THE PROSECUTION’S CASE TO MEANINGFUL ADVERSARIAL TESTING IN THE GUILT PHASE OF THE DEFENDANT’S TRIAL BY CONCEDING GUILT WITHOUT CONSULTATION. Ground Seventeen MR. GROSSMAN WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT THE PENALTY PHASE OF HIS TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND CONTRARY TO THE HOLDING IN WIGGINS V. SMITH, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). Ground Eighteen THE FLORIDA DEATH SENTENCING STATUTE AS APPLIED IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION UNDER THE HOLDING IN Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). STANDARDS OF REVIEW Because Grossman filed his petition after April 24, 1996, this case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792, 121 S.Ct. 1910, 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001); Henderson v. Campbell, 353 F.3d 880, 889-90 (11th Cir.2003); Maharaj v. Sec’y for Dept. of Corrections, 304 F.3d 1345, 1346 (11th Cir.2002). The AEDPA “establishes a more deferential standard of review of state habeas judgments,” Fugate v. Head, 261 F.3d 1206, 1214 (11th Cir.2001), in order to “prevent federal habeas ‘retrials’ and to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law.” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 693, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002); see, Bell v. Cone, _ U.S. _, 125 S.Ct. 847, 160 L.Ed.2d 881, 2005 WL 123827 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2005) (habeas court’s standard for evaluating state-court ruling is highly deferential, which demands that state-court decisions be given benefit of the doubt)[citing 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d) ]. AEDPA is relevant to a review of this Petition. A. A § 2254 application cannot be granted unless a petitioner “has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; ...” 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(A); Snowden v. Singletary, 135 F.3d 732, 735 (11th Cir.1998). “In other words, the state prisoner must give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas petition.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999). See also, Henderson v. Campbell, 353 F.3d at 891 (“A state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief cannot raise a federal constitutional claim in federal court unless he first properly raised the issue in the state courts.”)(quoting Judd v. Haley, 250 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir.2001)); Snowden v. Singletary, 135 F.3d at 735 (“Exhaustion of state remedies requires that the state prisoner fairly pre-sen[t] federal claims to the state courts in order to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights”) (quoting Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 130 L.Ed.2d 865 (1995)). Exhaustion of state court remedies generally requires a petitioner to pursue discretionary appellate review. “ ‘[S]tate prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process, including review by the state’s court of last resort, even if review in that court is discretionary.” Pruitt v. Jones, 348 F.3d 1355, 1358-59 (11th Cir.2003)(citing O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845, 119 S.Ct. 1728). This is required even if the state Supreme Court rarely grants such petitions and usually answers only questions of broad significance. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845-46, 119 S.Ct. 1728. “The teeth of the exhaustion requirement comes from its handmaiden, the procedural default doctrine.” Smith v. Jones, 256 F.3d 1135, 1138 (11th Cir.2001). Under the procedural default doctrine, “[i]f the petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies that are no longer available, that failure is a procedural default which will bar federal habeas relief, unless either the cause and prejudice or the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception is applicable.” Smith v. Jones, 256 F.3d at 1138. “The doctrine of procedural default was developed as a means of ensuring that federal habeas petitioners first seek relief in accordance with established state procedures.” Henderson v. Campbell, 353 F.3d at 891 (quoting Judd v. Haley, 250 F.3d at 1313). As stated above, a procedural default will only be excused in two narrow circumstances. First, petitioner may obtain federal habeas review of a proeedurally defaulted claim if he shows both “cause” for the default and actual “prejudice” resulting from the default. “Cause” ordinarily requires petitioner to demonstrate that some objective factor external to the defense impeded the effort to raise the claim properly in the state court. Henderson v. Campbell, 353 F.3d at 892; Marek v. Singletary, 62 F.3d 1295, 1302 (11th Cir.1995). To show “‘prejudice,” Grossman must show “not merely that the errors at his trial created a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his factual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions.” Hollis v. Davis, 941 F.2d 1471, 1480 (11th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 170, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982)). Grossman must show that there is at least a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Henderson v. Campbell, 353 F.3d at 892. Second, a petitioner may obtain federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim, without a showing of cause or prejudice, if such review is necessary to correct a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451, 120 S.Ct. 1587, 146 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000); Henderson v. Campbell, 353 F.3d at 892. This exception is only available “in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional violation has resulted in the conviction of someone who is actually innocent.” Henderson v. Campbell, 353 F.3d at 892. The fundamental miscarriage of justice exception concerns a petitioner’s “actual” innocence rather than his “legal” innocence. Johnson v. Alabama, 256 F.3d 1156, 1171 (2001) (citing Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986) (explaining that a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” occurs “in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional violation has resulted in the conviction of someone who is actually innocent”)). To meet this standard, a petitioner must “show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him” of the underlying offense. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). In addition, “ ‘[t]o be credible,’ a claim of actual innocence must be based on [new] reliable evidence not presented at trial.” Calderon, 523 U.S. at 559, 118 S.Ct. 1489 (quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324, 115 S.Ct. 851) (explaining that “[g]iv-en the rarity of such evidence, in virtually every case, the allegation of actual innocence has been summarily rejected”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Schlup Court stated that the petitioner must show constitutional error coupled with “new reliable evidence— whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence — that was not presented at trial.” Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324, 115 S.Ct. 851. This fundamental miscarriage of justice exception is not available unless “the petitioner shows, as a factual matter, that he did not commit the crime of conviction.” Ward v. Cain, 53 F.3d 106, 108 (5th Cir.1995) (denying certificate of probable cause)(footnote omitted). No Presumption that State Court Ignored Its Procedural Rules Finally, this Court cannot presume that a Florida court ignores its own procedural rules when the Court issues only a one-sentence denial of relief, which is essentially a summary dismissal. Such a ruling does not suggest that the state court resolved the issue on the federal claim presented. See Coleman, 501 U.S. 722, 735-36, 111 S.Ct. 2546 (1991); Kight v. Singletary, 50 F.3d 1539, 1544-1545 (11th Cir.1995) (applying procedural bar where state court’s summary dismissal did not' explain basis for ruling); Tower v. Phillips, 7 F.3d 206, 209 (11th Cir.1993) (applying bar where state court did not rule on claims presented). B. Pursuant to AEDPA, habeas relief may not be granted with respect to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudication of the claim: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application, of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634, 123 S.Ct. 1848, 1852-53, 155 L.Ed.2d 877 (2003); Clark v. Crosby, 335 F.3d 1303, 1308 (11th Cir.2003); Harrell v. Butterworth, 251 F.3d 926, 930 (11th Cir.2001). “Clearly established Federal law” is the governing legal principle, not the dicta, set forth by the United States Supreme Court at the time the state court issues its decision. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Where no Supreme Court precedent is on point, or the precedent is ambiguous, it cannot be said that the state court’s conclusion is contrary to clearly established governing federal law. Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 124 S.Ct. 7, 10, 157 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003); Clark v. Crosby, 335 F.3d at 1308-10; Washington v. Crosby, 324 F.3d 1263, 1265 (11th Cir.2003). A state court decision is “contrary to” the Supreme Court’s clearly established precedent within the meaning of § 2254(d)(1) only if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law as set forth in Supreme Court case law, or if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from those in a decision of the Supreme Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from Supreme Court precedent. Mitchell v. Esparza, 124 S.Ct. at 10 (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)). See also Price v. Vincent, 123 S.Ct. at 1853; Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. at 75-77, 123 S.Ct. 1166. A state court does not have to cite the Supreme Court precedent, or even be aware of it, so long as neither its reasoning nor its result contradicts Supreme Court precedent. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002); Mitchell v. Esparza, 124 S.Ct. at 10; Parker v. Secy. of Dept. of Corrections, 331 F.3d 764, 775-76 (11th Cir.2003). A state court decision involves an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent if the state court identifies the correct governing legal rule from Supreme Court cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular inmate’s case; or if the state court either unreasonably extends a legal principle from Supreme Court precedent to a new context where it should not apply; or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it should apply. Bottoson v. Moore, 234 F.3d 526, 531 (11th Cir.2000). The “unreasonable application” inquiry requires the state court decision to be more than incorrect or erroneous; it must be objectively unreasonable. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. at 75-77, 123 S.Ct. 1166; Williams, 529 U.S. at 409-10; Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. at 791-792, 121 S.Ct. 1910; Woodford v. Visciotti 537 U.S. 19, 25, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002); Mitchell v. Esparza, 124 S.Ct. at 11-12; Price v. Vincent, 123 S.Ct. at 1853. Whether a state court’s decision was unreasonable must be assessed in light of the record the court had before it. See Holland v. Jackson, _ U.S. _, _ - _, 124 S.Ct. 2736, 2737-2738, 159 L.Ed.2d 683 (2004) (citing Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 124 S.Ct. 1, 157 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003)) (per curiam) (denying relief where state court’s application of federal law was supported by the record); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 348, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (reasonableness of state court’s factual finding assessed “in light of the record before the court”); cf. Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. at 697, n. 4, 122 S.Ct. 1843 (declining to consider evidence not presented to state court in determining whether its decision was contrary to federal law). C. A factual finding by a state court is presumed to be correct, and a petitioner must rebut the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Henderson, 353 F.3d at 890-91. The statutory presumption of correctness applies only to findings of fact made by the state court, not to mixed determinations of law and fact. Parker v. Head, 244 F.3d 831, 836 (11th Cir.2001). A petitioner who “failed to develop” the factual basis for a claim while in state court as a result of the petitioner’s lack of diligence is barred from doing so in federal court (subject to the very narrow excep- tions set out in § 2254(e)(2)). Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 433-34, 120 S.Ct. 1479. D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the Supreme Court established a two-part test for determining whether a convicted person is entitled to habeas relief on the ground that his or her counsel rendered ineffective assistance: 1) whether counsel’s representation was deficient, i.e., “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness”; and 2) whether the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant, i.e., there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also, Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). A court must “judge the reasonableness of counsel’s conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel’s conduct.” Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052). This judicial scrutiny is “highly deferential.” Id. at 477, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A court must adhere to a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689-90, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 698, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002). Because the ultimate resolution of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims are mixed questions of law and fact, Thompson v. Haley, 255 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir.2001); Meeks v. Moore, 216 F.3d 951, 959 (11th Cir.2000), the presumption of correctness contained in § 2254(e)(1) does not apply to this determination. Parker v. Head, 244 F.3d at 835-837. “[T]he Strickland test provides sufficient guidance for resolving virtually all ineffective-assistanee-of-coun-sel claims.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495. “To state the obvious: the trial lawyers, in every case, could have done something more or something different. So, omissions are inevitable. But the issue is not what is possible or ‘what is prudent or appropriate, but only what is constitutionally compelled.’ ” Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1313 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (quoting Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987)). “Therefore, the cases in which habeas petitioners can properly prevail an the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel are few and far between.” Rogers v. Zant, 13 F.3d 384, 386 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 899, 115 S.Ct. 255, 130 L.Ed.2d 175 (1994). The inquiry into whether a lawyer has provided effective assistance is an objective one: a petitioner must establish that no objectively competent lawyer would have taken the action that his lawyer did take. See Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1315. An ambiguous or silent record is not sufficient to disprove the strong and continuing presumption of effective representation. Where the record is incomplete or unclear about counsel’s actions, it will be presumed that he did what he should have done, and that he exercised reasonable professional judgment. Chandler, 218 F.3d, at 1314 n. 15. E. Generally, claims alleging a violation of state law are not subject to review in federal habeas proceedings. Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41, 104 S.Ct. 871, 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984); McCullough v. Singletary, 967 F.2d 530, 535-36 (11th Cir. 1992). To the extent that a federal question is raised in the federal habeas petition, the federal question was not exhausted in state court if the issue were raised only as a state law claim in state court. Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6-8, 103 S.Ct. 276, 74 L.Ed.2d 3 (1982). Finally, in the event constitutional error is found in a habeas proceeding, the relevant harmless error standard is set forth in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). The test is “less onerous” then the harmless error standard enunciated in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). “The test is whether the error had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. Under this standard, habeas petitioners may obtain plenary review of their constitutional claims, but they are not entitled to habeas relief based on trial error unless they can establish that it resulted in ‘actual prejudice.’ ” Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710. Although no constitutional error has occurred in Grossman’s case, any possible error would clearly be harmless beyond any reasonable doubt based on the facts and the record herein. DISCUSSION Ground One Grossman’s initial contention asserts that his constitutional rights were violated when the trial court denied his motion to sever his trial from that of his codefendant, Thayne Taylor. Grossman raised this claim on direct appeal. (Ex. B, 37-46). It was denied on the merits by the Florida Supreme Court, applying Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987). See Grossman, 525 So.2d at 838-39. In support of his claim, Grossman asserts that the trial court’s denial of his motion to sever violated his constitutional right to confrontation because Taylor’s confession was admitted into evidence, and the trial court’s instruction for the jury only to consider the confession with regard to Taylor’s guilt was insufficient to protect Grossman’s constitutional rights. In rejecting this claim, the Florida Supreme Court related the relevant facts and summarized the applicable law. The court acknowledged that Cruz, which had not been decided at the time of Grossman’s trial, compelled a finding of legal error in the admission of Taylor’s confession. However, the court determined that the error was harmless on the facts and circumstances presented. Grossman, 525 So.2d at 838-39. The claim asserted in Grossman’s federal habeas petition is refuted by the state courts’ express factual findings. Specifically, the Florida Supreme Court noted that, “Taylor’s statement interlocks with and is fully consistent in all significant aspects with all three statements that appellant made to Hancock, Allan, and Brewer and which were directly admissible against appellant.” Grossman, 525 So.2d at 838-39. The court also noted that Grossman’s statements to all three of these witnesses demonstrated that Gross-man was the initiator and triggerman while Taylor’s role was “clearly subordinate;” and that the witnesses were able to identify Grossman as the person who narrated the critical elements of the murder. Id. Although Grossman alleges that, “contrary to the [state courts’] belief, Mr. Grossman’s and co-defendant Taylor’s confessions were not ‘interlocking,’ ” (Memorandum, p. 3), he does not explain this assertion or identify any evidence to support it. Thus, he has failed to overcome the state courts’ factual findings. Grossman similarly has no basis to suggest that the state courts’ legal conclusions were wrong. The Florida Supreme Court correctly identified Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987), as the applicable federal law at the time of Grossman’s direct appeal. Although Grossman does not cite Cruz, he relies on the earlier cases of Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979), and Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88, S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), which were also identified by the Florida Supreme Court as controlling, but modified by Cruz. Because the state court correctly identified the appropriate federal law, the decision denying his claim cannot be deemed “contrary to” established federal law. Williams, 529 U.S. at 406, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Nor has Grossman shown the application of the Cruz principles to be objectively unreasonable. In fact, the state court clearly analyzed the consequences of failing to sever Grossman’s trial from Taylor’s trial and the admission of Taylor’s statements under the relevant considerations outlined in Cruz. The treatment of this issue in state court was fully consistent with the holding of Cruz, and no basis for the granting of habeas relief has been offered in this claim. Grossman’s characterization of Taylor as the “linch-pin” of the state’s case, providing testimony crucial to his conviction, is mistaken. Taylor did not testify at Gross-man’s trial. Although Taylor’s statements were admitted for the jury’s consideration as to Taylor’s guilt only, Taylor’s, statements were fully consistent with Gross-man’s statements, which were properly admitted against Grossman. Brian Hancock testified Grossman told Hancock that Grossman followed Peggy Park to her vehicle, hit her repeatedly with her flashlight, wrested her gun away and then shot her at point blank range. (Ex. A, Vll-12/1957-2036). Brian Allan’s testimony demonstrated that Grossman gave Allan the same account. (Ex. A, V12/2038-2070). Grossman indicated to Hancock and Allan that Grossman was under arrest and Officer Park had told him that he was going back to prison; and Grossman beat and shot Park in order to avoid going to jail. (Ex. A, Vll/1966-68, V12/2036, 2046). Grossman admitted the same motivation in statements to fellow inmate Brewer. (Ex. A, V12/2084-2110). Grossman did not present a defense that was inconsistent with Taylor’s statements. On these facts, the Florida Supreme Court’s finding of harmless error with regard to the admission of Taylor’s statements is a reasonable application of established federal law. Although the Florida Supreme Court properly analyzed any harm attributable to the admission of Taylor’s statements under Cruz, this Court’s analysis of any alleged constitutional error is more appropriate under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). Under Brecht, constitutional error will be considered harmless in a habeas proceeding unless the error had substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict or sentence. The facts of this case demonstrate that Grossman was not prejudiced if there were any constitutional error in this issue; he has not even attempted to demonstrate otherwise. Grossman has failed to show that the state courts’ rejection of this claim relied on erroneous facts, or that the state courts applied established federal law in a manner that was contrary to or was objectively unreasonable in light of United States Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, no ha-beas relief is warranted on ground one. Ground Two Grossman’s next claim concerns a purported conflict of interest arising when the public defender initially appointed to represent Grossman ultimately represented his codefendant, Thayne Taylor, in their joint trial. Grossman raised this issue as claim seven in Grossman’s postconviction appeal. The claim was specifically rejected as procedurally barred under state law. Grossman, 708 So.2d at 252, n. 6. In Florida, issues which either were or could have been litigated at trial and upon direct appeal are not cognizable through collateral attack. This Circuit has long recognized this aspect of Florida law. Sullivan v. Wainwright, 695 F.2d 1306, 1310 (11th Cir.) (claims that could have been or should have been reserved at trial and then raised on direct appeal and were not are procedurally barred), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 922, 104 S.Ct. 290, 78 L.Ed.2d 266 (1983). The Florida Supreme Court did not address the merits of Grossman’s Rule 3.850 claim regarding this conflict issue. The state court expressly applied Florida’s procedural rules and the decision rests on independent and adequate grounds barring federal habeas corpus review. When a state court has declined to address federal claims because the defendant failed to meet a state procedural requirement, the independent and adequate state grounds doctrine applies to bar federal habeas review. The federal court will not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment. See Eagle v. Linahan, 279 F.Sd 926 (11th Cir.2001) (citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. at 729, 111 S.Ct. 2546). This rule applies whether the state law ground is substantive or procedural. Id. In an attempt to overcome the procedural default, Grossman, in his reply, relies on Upshaw v. Singletary, 70 F.3d 576, 580 (11th Cir.1995) for the proposition that the state does not consistently apply the rule that an issue cannot be raised on collateral attack if the issue could, or should have been, raised on direct appeal. However, as stated above, the Eleventh Circuit has long recognized this aspect of Florida law. Sullivan v. Wainwright, 695 F.2d at 1310. Florida has consistently applied this rule. Grossman has not demonstrated valid cause to excuse his default of ground two. Nor has Grossman shown actual prejudice or alleged facts to make a colorable showing of actual innocence. Grossman, therefore, has failed to overcome his procedural default under Wainwright v. Sykes. Even if the claim were not procedurally barred, this claim is without merit. Gross-man’s conflict claim does not involve the attorney who actually represented Gross-man at trial; rather, Grossman alleges that he was denied a fair trial due to his codefendant’s representation by an assistant public defender, Anthony Rondolino, who originally was appointed to represent Grossman. Rondolino withdrew from his appointment to represent Grossman after five days, due to the adverse interests between Grossman and Taylor. Grossman asserts that, because Rondoli-no had access to confidential information from Grossman prior to Rondolino’s withdrawing from his case, Rondolino’s subsequent representation of Taylor created an actual conflict of interest that was constitutionally impermissible. To obtain habeas relief based on an improper conflict of interest, Grossman would have to show an actual conflict and to demonstrate that such conflict adversely affected his attorney’s performance. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980) (a mere possibility of conflict of interest does not rise to the level of a Sixth Amendment violation); Mills v. Singletary, 161 F.3d 1273, 1287 (11th Cir.1998). In Mills, the Eleventh Circuit discussed the distinction between an actual and a potential conflict of interest based on an initial dual representation of adverse codefendants. An actual conflict can only be found when a petitioner “can point to specific instances in the record to suggest an actual conflict or impairment of their interests.” 161 F.3d at 1287 (quoting Smith v. White, 815 F.2d 1401, 1404-05 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 863, 108 S.Ct. 181, 98 L.Ed.2d 133 (1987)). In this case, the only instances in the record Grossman has cited to support his claim of an actual conflict that affected Rondolino’s performance are found at Ex. A, Vll/1821, where Rondolino took a position adverse to Grossman during opening argument; Ex. A, V13/2283, 2288, where Rondolino stipulated that Taylor’s statement to law enforcement was voluntary; Ex. A, V13/2304-05, where Rondolino argued against cross-examination on Taylor’s statement; and Ex. A, V14/2489, 2490, where Rondolino vouched for state witnesses. No adverse interests existed at these times because Rondolino did not, in any way, represent Grossman at trial. To the extent that Grossman asserts the conflict premised on Rondolino’s access to confidential information, none of these instances suggest that Rondolino’s actions were, in any way, affected by the use or disclosure of any confidential information. Grossman has not identified any prejudice to Grossman that could have resulted from Rondolino’s representation of Taylor. His assertion that Rondolino had access to confidential information is meaningless, since no such information is specifically identified and no disclosure or damaging use of any privileged information has been alleged. None of Rondolino’s actions cited above were occasioned by the prior relationship between Grossman and Rondolino. The mere fact that Rondolino adopted a reasonable strategy for Taylor that attempted to shift the blame to Grossman is not sufficient to substantiate the claim that Rondolino rendered ineffective assistance to Grossman. And even if Rondolino violated an unsubstantiated, continuing “duty of loyalty” to Grossman as a former client, mere improper or unethical behavior does not automatically constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Grossman has failed to demonstrate that either his trial counsel Tom McCoun, or Taylor’s attorney, Rondolino, performed in a manner adversely affected by Rondolino’s prior relationship with Grossman. The Cuyler Court noted that, “until a defendant shows that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests,” he has not established a violation of the Sixth Amendment. 446 U.S. at 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708 (emphasis added). Even if Rondolino had a “continuing duty of loyalty” to Grossman at the time of trial, he was no longer “actively representing” Grossman. Any possible constitutional error in this issue would be harmless under Brecht. Finally, Grossman fails to meet his burden of showing under the AEDPA standard that the state decision resulted in an unreasonable application of established Supreme Court precedent. Ground two does not warrant habeas corpus relief. Ground Three Grossman contends that his constitutional rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to file a proper sentencing order. Grossman raised this claim in his direct appeal. (Ex. B/84-85). In state court, Grossman never alleged a federal constitutional violation with regard to the timeliness of his sentencing order. He relied only on state cases and did not even summarily refer to the federal constitution. Thus, to the extent any federal constitutional question is implied in Grossman’s present habeas petition, that question has not been exhausted in state court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 277-78, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971) (noting both the operative facts and the controlling legal principles of a constitutional claim must be submitted to the state court). In his federal petition, Grossman challenges this alleged legal error as a matter of state law. This fact is apparent from the claim in his Memorandum that “[t]he Circuit Court and the Florida Supreme Court failed to follow the then existing Laws of the State of Florida.” (Memorandum, p. 10). Since Grossman has not presented a federal constitutional question, this Court has no basis to review this issue. Pulley, 465 U.S. at 41, 104 S.Ct. 871; McCullough, 967 F.2d at 535-36; Carrizales v. Wainwright, 699 F.2d 1053, 1054 (11th Cir.1983)(an “issue involving] a pure question of state law” and issues of state law do not generally raise issues of constitutional magnitude). Although Grossman’s claim asserts that “[t]he sentencing court by failing to properly and timely state the reasons for imposing a sentence of death, either orally or in writing, violated Mr. Grossman’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution,” Grossman has not identified any established federal law requiring that a timely written order supporting the imposition of the death penalty be entered. Furthermore, his current allegation that the facts establish “a critical violation of due process and equal protection of the laws” (Petition, p. 12) has never been presented to any state court. His claim is procedurally barred. In addition, this claim is without merit. This issue was decided adversely to Gross-man as a matter of state law in his state direct appeal. Grossman, 525 So.2d at 841. Grossman’s suggestion that the Florida Supreme Court treated him in a different way from the defendant in Van Royal v. State, 497 So.2d 625 (Fla.1986), is belied by that Florida Supreme Court’s properly finding Van Royal to be factually distinguishable. Grossman’s assertion that the state trial court acted without jurisdiction is incorrect since, as the Florida Supreme Court noted, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(4) conferred concurrent jurisdiction on the circuit court for preparation of the appellate record. Grossman’s claim that the imposition of his sentence failed to comport with the Eighth Amendment is refuted by the trial court’s order delineating the judge’s findings with regard to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. (Ex. A, V2/289-90). See generally Parker v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308, 317-18, 111 S.Ct. 731, 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991) (discussing relevant Florida law with regard to death penalty sentencing orders). The United States Constitution does not require a sentencer to accept, only to consider, relevant mitigating circumstances, and a state is not required to ascribe any specific weight to any particular evidence considered by the sentencer. Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504, 512, 115 S.Ct. 1031, 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995); Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299, 110 S.Ct. 1078, 108 L.Ed.2d 255 (1990). Thus, Grossman’s death sentence was imposed in accordance with all applicable constitutional principles. The Florida Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Florida law; federal courts must respect that law absent a constitutional violation. Breedlove v. Moore, 279 F.3d 952, at 963 (11th Cir.2002). A federal habeas court may not issue the writ on the basis of a state’s interpretation of its own laws and rales, absent extreme circumstances. Pulley, 465 U.S. at 42, 104 S.Ct. 871. No such circumstances have been demonstrated in this case. Grossman has not identified any erroneous factual findings relied upon the by state courts in denying relief. He has not identified any prevailing federal precedent from the United States Supreme Court that was ignored or misapplied by the state courts’ resolution of this claim. Therefore, ground three is facially insufficient and does not compel any finding of constitutional error. Any possible constitutional error in this issue would be harmless under Brecht. Habeas relief is not warranted based on the alleged inadequacy or untimeliness of the trial court’s sentencing order. Ground Four Grossman alleges that the trial judge’s refusal to give jury instructions requested by the defense warrants federal habeas relief. Grossman raised this claim on direct appeal as two distinct issues: in Question 8, Grossman challenged the trial court’s refusal to give an instruction with regard to accomplice testimony; in Question 14, he challenged the denial of several requested penalty phase special instructions. (Ex. B, pp. 73 -79). Accomplice Instruction Grossman did not allege a violation of any federal right, and no federal constitutional issue was fairly presented to the state court regarding his challenge to the refusal to give an instruction with regard to accomplice testimony. Therefore, Grossman’s claim challenging the denial of the requested instruction on accomplice testimony is unexhausted and now procedurally barred to the extent any federal constitutional issue is implied. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 848, 119 S.Ct. 1728; Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1281 (2003). Furthermore, this claim is without merit. As to the failure to instruct the jury on weighing accomplice testimony, relief is precluded by the Florida Supreme Court’s express finding that Hancock was not an accomplice. Grossman, 525 So.2d at 837. Although Taylor was an accomplice, the jury was instructed not to consider his statements in assessing Gross-man’s guilt. (Ex.A, V15/2548). Thus, this claim fails factually. The claim fails legally even if Hancock is presumed to be an accomplice. Grossman does not cite any existing federal law requiring the giving of the cautionary accomplice instruction. His reliance on United States v. Beard, 761 F.2d 1477 (11th Cir.1985) is misplaced because the prevailing federal law for habeas purposes must emanate from the United States Supreme Court. See Putman, 268 F.3d at 1241. Grossman’s reliance on Beard cannot be interpreted as reasonably offering any federal constitutional basis for this claim. The absence of a federal constitutional argument on the aspect of Gross-man’s issue relating to the accomplice instruction precludes review of that claim in this Court. This claim does not involve any reasonable factual dispute, and Gross-man has not identified any existing federal law that was contrary to or unreasonably applied by the Florida Supreme Court’s in its rejection of Grossman’s accomplice instruction claim. Penalty Phase Jury Instructions Similarly, Grossman’s assertion that the federal constitution required additional penalty phase jury instructions be given has no basis in law. The Florida Supreme Court expressly found that the standard jury instructions that were given at Grossman’s trial adequately addressed his concerns. Grossman, 525 So.2d at 837. Grossman has not identified any United States Supreme Court precedent that required giving more expansive penalty phase instructions. In Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990), the Court held that the proper legal standard for reviewing a claim that a jury instruction was ambiguous and therefore subject to erroneous interpretation was “whether there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instruction in a way that prevented consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.” 494 U.S. at 380, 110 S.Ct. 1190. Grossman has riot met that standard and has not shown constitutional error related to this claim. Finally, on the facts of this case, no relief could be warranted because any possible impropriety in the denial of the requested jury instructions would be harmless beyond any reasonable doubt. Under Brecht, constitutional error will be considered harmless in a habeas proceeding unless the error had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the sentence. Grossman makes no attempt to establish prejudice with regard to the trial court’s failure to provide more expansive penalty phase instructions. In light of the strong and significant aggravating factors and the lack of mitigation, the jury’s unanimous recommendation, and the egregious facts of this case, there is no possibility that any additional penalty phase instructions could have affected Grossman’s sentence. Grossman has failed to demonstrate that the state courts’ rejection of this claim relied on erroneous facts, or applied established federal law in a manner that was contrary to or objectively unreasonable in light of United States Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, no habeas relief is warranted on this claim. Ground Five Grossman asserts a violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). He claims that the sentencing jury was misled by unconstitutional jury instructions and the state’s argument that diluted the jury’s sense of responsibility in the sentencing process in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Grossman raised this claim on direct appeal. (Ex. B, 50-54). The Florida Supreme Court denied the claim on the merits. See Grossman, 525 So.2d at 839-40. The claim was reconsidered and again rejected in the denial of Grossman’s state habeas petition. (Claim II, Ex. P, 56-59); Grossman, 708 So.2d at 253. The Florida Supreme Court identified the controlling federal law as Caldwell, so the rejection of this claim cannot be found to be contrary to clearly established federal law. As subsequent cases demonstrate, the Florida Supreme Court’s application of Caldwell in this case was plainly objectively reasonable. In order to establish constitutional error under Caldwell, a petitioner must show that the comments or instructions to the jury “improperly described the role assigned to the jury by local law.” Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1, 9, 114 S.Ct. 2004, 129 L.Ed.2d 1 (1994). “The infirmity identified in Caldwell is simply absent” in a case where “the jury was not affirmatively misled regarding its role in the sentencing process.” Romano, 512 U.S. at 9, 114 S.Ct. 2004; Davis v. Singletary, 119 F.3d 1471, 1482 (11th Cir.1997). The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly recognized, as did the Florida Supreme Court, that comments describing the jury’s role in Florida as that of making an advisory recommendation and that of the judge as being the final sentencing authority do not constitute Caldwell error. The Florida Supreme Court has routinely rejected this claim on comments similar to those challenged in Grossman’s case. Johnston v. Singletary, 162 F.3d 630 (11th Cir.1998); Provenzano v. Singletary, 148 F.3d 1327, 1334 (11th Cir.1998); Davis v. Singletary, 119 F.3d at 1482. Grossman is not entitled to relief because a review of the trial .proceedings reveals that the jury was never misled regarding its proper role under Florida law. Harich v. Dugger, 844 F.2d 1464 (11th Cir.1988) (en banc). Pursuant to Harich, “emphasizing the ‘advisory’ role of the jury, or the fact that the jury is making a ‘recommendation’ to the judge, does not support the Caldwell claim. Such statements are neither inaccurate not misleading.” 844 F.2d at 1473-74. Grossman has failed to demonstrate that the state courts’ rejection of this claim relied on erroneous facts, or that the state courts applied established federal law in a manner that was contrary to or objectively unreasonable in light of United States Supreme Court precedent. In addition, any possible constitutional error in this issue would clearly be harmless under Brecht Therefore, no habeas relief is warranted on ground five. Ground Six Grossman alleges that his appellate attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Grossman has identified four issues that he asserts should have been raised in his direct appeal: 1) the written sentencing order was insufficient for failing to specify the facts supporting the trial judge’s findings 'with regard to aggravating and mitigating factors; 2) Florida’s capital sentencing statute is unconstitutional because the burden is on the defendant to establish that life is the appropriate sentence; 3) the jury instruction provided on the “heinous, atrocious or cruel” aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague; and 4) the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), due to an alleged discovery violation by the state. Grossman raised these claims in his initial state habeas petition. (See Ex. P, pp. 5-17, 22-24, 28-30, 42-47.) The Florida Supreme Court rejected Grossman’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, making several findings: Grossman claims as his first issue in his habeas petition that appellate counsel provided ineffective representation in a number-of ways. (A) He claims that appellate counsel should have argued that the trial court’s sentencing order was insufficiently specific. A review of the order, however, shows that it comports with the law that was in effect at that time. (B) He asserts that appellate counsel should have claimed prosecutorial misconduct. This issue was not preserved since trial counsel failed to object to the allegedly improper statements. (C) He asserts that appellate counsel should have argued more convincingly that Florida’s capital sentencing statute is unconstitutional. This claim is procedurally barred — it was raised on direct appeal. (D) He asserts that appellate counsel should have argued that the death penalty is imposed in an arbitrary fashion. This claim is procedurally barred — it was raised on direct appeal. (E) He claims that appellate counsel should have argued that the HAC instruction was vague. This issue was not preserved. Although trial counsel objected on vagueness grounds to the HAC aggravating circumstance pretrial, he did not object to the proposed instruction at trial except on the ground that the evidence did not support it; nor did he propose an alternative instruction. Appellate counsel cannot be faulted. Ferguson v. Singletary, 632 So.2d 53 (Fla.1993).(F) Grossman claims that appellate co