held that a “trial counsel’s ‘strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel’s decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct.’ ” Anderson v. State, 18 So.3d 501, 509 (Fla.2009) (quoting Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000)). Here, attorney' Smith noted that there was nothing else to add at the suppression hearing, that the salient facts were basically undisputed, and that if he had needed the testimony he certainly would have asked Everett to testify. This Court has also consistently held that a trial counsel’s decision to not call certain witnesses to testify at trial can be reasonable trial strategy. See Bowles v. State, 979 So.2d 182, 188 (Fla.2008) (<HOLDING>); Arbelaez v. State, 898 So.2d 25, 39
holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy holding that counsels failure to object or request a limiting instruction for evidence of defendants incarceration was sound trial strategy holding that trial counsels failure to call defendants family members as witnesses during penalty phase was reasonable trial strategy and not ineffective assistance of counsel holding that counsels failure to call clinical psychologist to provide emotional disturbance mitigation was reasonable trial strategy holding that after weighing the benefitrisk ratio counsels declination to call a clinical psychologist whose testimony could have provided emotional disturbance mitigation was consistent with reasonable trial strategy