“Dunaway’s collateral counsel did not ask Mr. Brunson a single question about his representation of Dykes. In addition, Dunaway provided the Court with no statutory or legal authority that would have permitted Dykes to be impeached with evidence of alleged threats he made to his estranged wife. .Rule 608(b), .Ala. R. Evid., specifically would have- forbidden the use of specific instances of bad conduct to impeach a witness’s credibility , unless such conduct resulted in a conviction. See also Rule 609(a), Ala. R. Evid. The Court finds that Dunaway failed to prove that Brunson’s representation of Dykes in a divorce created an actual conflict of interest or adversely affected Brunson’s representation.- Rule 32.3, Ala. R.Crim. P. See M.S. v. State, 822 So.2d 449, 452 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). “The Court finds that this allegation of
holding the burden of proving that a conflict of interest rises to the level of ineffective assistance rests on the one asserting the conflict holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal holding that a conflict of interest independent of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel  constitute cause where the conflict caused the attorney to interfere with the petitioners right to pursue his  1 claim recognizing the conflict recognizing conflict