as aggravating circumstances. Thus, the trial court found “that counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to present this nonstatutory, non-mental health mitigation.” Trial counsel will not be held to be deficient when she makes a reasonable strategic decision to not present mental mitigation testimony during the penalty phase because it could open the door to other damaging testimony. See Ferguson v. State, 593 So.2d 508, 510 (Fla.1992) (finding that counsel’s decision to not put on mental health experts was a “reasonable strategy in light of the negative aspects of the expert testimony” because the experts had indicated that they thought that the defendant was malingering, a sociopath, and a very dangerous person); see also State v. Bolender, 503 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla.1987) (<HOLDING>). It is apparent from the record that the
recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding that sjtrategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance if alternative courses of action have been considered and rejected holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record holding where defendant challenged jury instruction and also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based upon his counsels failure to object to instruction because we find no error in the instructions defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must also be rejected holding that the failure to raise a futile issue does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel