mother attempted to influence her testimony by bribery. Defense counsel objected to this during the trial, asserting that he had the right to impeach Markum based on prior inconsistent statements and that the State was not permitted to reveal that a third party coerced the testimony unless it could be shown that the defendant was connected to such a plot. The trial court overruled counsel’s objection and permitted the State to inquire as to Markum’s excuse for her inconsistent statements, but gave curative instructions to the jury that this attempt was not connected to the defendant. Since defense counsel raised this very objection with the trial court, which ruled adversely to him, counsel was not ineffective but acted properly. See, e.g., Swafford, v. State, 828 So.2d 966 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>). Lewis’ claim is without merit. LEWIS’S
holding that failure to object to admissible evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel holding that if counsel raises an issue the failure to convince the court to rule in an appellants favor is not ineffective performance holding that when a defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel the trial judge must conduct an inquiry into the claim holding that the failure to raise a futile issue does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel holding that ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes cause for procedural default only if counsels performance was constitutionally ineffective