mere conclusions of law shall not be sufficient to warrant any further proceedings.’ ” Ex parte Land, 775 So.2d 847, 852-53 (Ala. 2000) (footnote omitted). In this case, the appellant did not show good cause why the circuit court should have granted his motion for discovery. For the reasons set forth herein, the appellant did not allege sufficient facts that, if true, would have established that he was entitled to relief on his Brady claim. Further, in his motion for discovery, he alleged only that the requested discovery was necessary to support his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. Thus, it appears that he was simply attempting to fish through the requested information to find support for his ineffective-assistance claims. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in pp.1990) (<HOLDING>); Clark v. State, 551 So.2d 1091 (Ala.1989)
holding that where a conviction is reversed after trial the double jeopardy clause does not bar a government appeal that if successful would only reinstate the conviction and would not subject defendant to a second trial holding that a conviction even when later reversed creates a rebuttable presumption of probable cause holding that where a juror did not disclose that she knew someone who had been sexually abused the conviction and sentence must be reversed holding that where juror did not disclose that she had an interest in the conviction of the defendant probable prejudice is shown and the conviction must be reversed holding that uncounseled conviction could not be considered by court in sentencing defendant after subsequent conviction