serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Valle, 778 So.2d at 965. Lewis also claims that his counsel could have been more effective in impeaching Mayberry by informing the jury that Mayberry and Lewis were placed in the same holding cell, possibly tainting Mayberry’s identification of Lewis as the assailant. As Lewis recognizes, however, his trial counsel made the strategic decision to not bring this out, asserting that it would draw attention to the fact that Lewis was in jail. Although the wisdom of this decision may be debatable, this does not constitute an error of such magnitude that it falls “measurably outside the range of professionally acceptable performance.” Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So.2d 637, 643 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). Lewis finally asserts that his counsel could
holding that counsels performance is deficient where the alleged omissions are of such magnitude as to constitute a serious error or substantial deficiency falling measurably outside the range of professionally acceptable performance recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense holding that counsels performance was deficient for failing to investigate readily available evidence of mental impairment holding that where counsels deficient performance resulted in structural error prejudice will be presumed holding that the failure to recognize every possible legal argument did not render counsels performance constitutionally deficient