ask Mr; Brunson a single; question about his representation of Marcus Rus-saw or Michael-Russaw. Dunaway’s collateral counsel also failed to offer this Courp any 'information Brunson could ■have used to impeach the trial testimony of Marcus Russaw, Mary Russaw, Lois Russaw, Felicia Russaw, or Teresa Rus-saw. Further, Dunaway’s collateral counsel did not call any of the Russaws to testify at the evidentiary hearing. “The Court finds that this allegation of ineffective assistance is without merit. Rule 32.7(d), Ala. R.Crim. P. In the alternative,- the Court finds that Duna-way failed to meet his burden of proving this allegation of ineffective assistance by a prepondérance of evidence as required by Rule 32.3, Ala. R.Crim. P. See M.S. v. State, 822 So.2d 449, 452 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (<HOLDING>).” (C.R. 743-46.) We agree with the circuit
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 recognizing the conflict recognizing conflict 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