concur in results.
T1 I concur in the results reached in this case but write separately to address the same concerns I raised in Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6, 130 P.3d 273, 285-286 (Lump-kin, J., concur in part/dissent in part). This case presents the type of problem I wrote about in Anderson (application of the 85% Rule to life sentences). Onee the door is opened to talking about parole, it is a slippery slope and difficult to establish parameters for the application of 21 0.8.Supp.2007, § 18.1.
T2 Further, the judge's direction to the jury to rely on their instructions and the evidence was a sufficient admonishment to cure any error in the prosecutor's remarks. See Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40, 1192, 144 P.3d 838, 890-91; Hollon v. State, 1984 OK CR 42, 1 19, 676 P.2d 861, 865. In Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 870, 384, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 1200, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990), the United States Supreme Court said:
. arguments of counsel generally carry less weight with a jury than do instructions from the court. The former are usually billed in advance to the jury as matters of argument, not evidence, and are likely viewed as the statements of advocates; the latter, we have often recognized, are viewed as definitive and binding statements of the law.
{3 Here, the jury was correctly instructed on the 85% Rule. We presume juries follow their instructions. Ryder v. State, 2004 OK CR 2, T 83, 83 P.3d 856, 875, citing Zafiro v. Umited States, 506 U.S. 584, 540, 118 S.Ct. 933, 939, 122 L.Ed.2d 817 (1998). In light of the court's admonition and the correct jury instruction, any misstatement by the prosecutor, when considered in the context of the entire closing argument, did not deny Appellant a fair trial. See Spears v. State, 1995 OK CR 36, 160, 900 P.2d 481, 445 (allegations of prosecutorial misconduct will not cause a reversal of judgment or modification of sentence unless their cumulative effect is *160such as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial).