question veniremember I.R. as to her competency to sit on the jury. Specifically, he alleges that she was not able to understand the proceedings. With regard to this contention, the circuit court found: “Taylor contends that trial counsel should have challenged [I.R.] because, according to Taylor, she was unable to understand the proceedings. The Court has reviewed page 626 of the trial record that Taylor cites in his petition. The Court disagrees with Taylor’s interpretation of [LR.’s] comment. The Court finds that [I.R.’s] response to the district attorney’s question in no way indicated that she did not understand the nature of the proceedings. The Court finds that this claim is without merit; therefore, it is denied. See, Gibby v. State, 753 So.2d 1206, 1207-1208 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (<HOLDING>).” (C.R. 611.) The record supports the circuit
holding that a postconviction claim that is refuted by the record on direct appeal is without merit holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised on direct appeal when the facts supporting the claim are presented on the face of the record holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as frivolous and patently without merit was properly filed holding that misadvice of counsel as to the length of a sentence is a basis for postconviction relief if not refuted by the record holding that postconviction allegations directly refuted by the trial record are without merit