to render a fair.decision in the case. 1. Initially, the appellant asserts counsel did no urt’s findings, and we adopt them as part of this opinion. 2. Also, the appellant asserts that counsel did not question veniremember B.W. about her relationship to one of the State’s witnesses. With regard to this contention, the circuit court found: “Taylor contends trial counsel should have challenged [B.W.] for cause because her niece was married to Mike Garigues, one of the State’s witnesses. [B.W.] indicated, however, that she would not give more belief or credibility to Garigues’s testimony simply because he was married to her niece. (R. 625-626) The Court finds that his 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. 610.) The record supports the circuit
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 postconviction allegations directly refuted by the trial record are without merit 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 second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as frivolous and patently without merit was properly filed holding that a postconviction claim that is refuted by the record on direct appeal is without merit