failed to satisfy the requirements of Strickland. Davis further argues in this section of his brief that counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate and present alternative theories of the case. When addressing this claim, the circuit court stated: “Davis identified four individuals as other suspects and two individuals as other witnesses [in his postconviction petition]. Davis, however, did not present any specific information at his evidentiary hearing that his trial counsel could have discovered and presented that could have made a difference in the outcome of his trial. “Because Davis failed to pursue this allegation of ineffective assistance at the evidentiary hearing, the Court finds that he has abandoned it. See Burgess v. State, [962 So.2d 272 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) ] (<HOLDING>). In the alternative, the Court finds Davis
holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing because the trial record clearly indicated that the sentencing judge was aware of many of the mitigators that counsel was presenting to this court on appeal holding that constitution protected right to counsel at sentencing even where it was waived at trial holding counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence holding burgess had abandoned claim his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to victimimpactevidence introduced at sentencing where he did not present evidence at the rule 32 hearing to support it