In Lambrix v. Singletary, 641 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1994), the Supreme Court of Florida held that Lambrix's Espinosa v. Florida claim was procedurally barred because although it was raised before the trial court, appellate counsel failed to preserve the error on appeal. Further, this Court held that Lambrix was procedurally barred from asserting that appellate counsel was ineffective based on this failure since he had previously litigated other alleged instances of ineffective appellate counsel in prior habeas proceedings. Id. at 848. The Eleventh Circuit held that the decision in Espinosa could not retroactively apply under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 103 L. Ed. 2d 334 (1989). See Lambrix v. Singletary, 72 F.3d 1500, 1503 (11th Cir. 1996). The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and affirmed the Eleventh Circuit court's decision, holding that Espinosa v. Florida was a new rule and the failure to apply this case retroactively could not be the basis for federal habeas relief. Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 117 S. Ct. 1517, 137 L. Ed. 2d 771 (1997).