Whether the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective attorney representation requires a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel where the trial attorney failed to present medical testimony that would have impeached the sole witness against the petitioner

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective attorney representation in a criminal felony prosecution (applicable against the State of Florida by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) requires a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel where Petitioner properly presented a claim of ineffective assistance that his trial attorney failed to put forth any medical testimony in a case where the only evidence supporting conviction for a life felony sexual abuse claims was the testimony of the alleged victim, where the trial attorney’s articulated strategy was to hope that the jury observed Petitioner’s apparent physical weakness and conclude that he was physically unable to commit the described sexual acts, where the trial attorney was provided with medical records showing Petitioner’s severe debility prior to trial, and where a neurologist testified in the postconviction evidentiary hearing that given the medical records available at the time of trial, any medical doctor would testify that it was medically impossible for Petitioner to commit the crimes in the manner described by the alleged victim, testimony that would have impeached the sole witness against Petitioner if it had been presented at trial, or whether lower courts are free to characterize such unreasonable decisions as “strategic decisions” protected by Strickland.