524, 526 (Ind.1990) (discussing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). Counsel is presumed to be competent; "[iJsolated poor strategy, inexperience, or bad tactics do not necessarily amount to ineffectiveness of counsel." Id. Defendant first argues that defense counsel's performance was deficient when he failed to object to Jacob's testimony concerning Tanelle's Fourth of July statements. Defendant argues that this could not have been a strategy decision, since defense counsel already had objected to Darlene's testimony on the same topic. However, since the objection to Darlene's testimony already had been overruled, we cannot say that failure to object once again was deficient performance. See Drake v. State, 563 N.E.2d 1286, 1290 (Ind.1990) (<HOLDING>). Even assuming that this behavior was
holding that issue is preserved if the objections at the trial were sufficiently specific to notify the trial court at the time of the nature and character of the objections and the reasons for them holding that a party waived its objections on appeal to an affidavit presented in support of a motion for summary judgment by failing to raise its objections to the trial court holding that failure to make repeated objections is not ineffective when such objections would not have been sustained holding that when defendants only timely filed objections to expert report were that two statements were speculative defendant waived all other objections holding that because generic objections do not afford a sentencing court sufficient notice such objections are inadequate to preserve specific claims of sentencing error