facts that, if presented at trial, could have undermined the testimony of the State medical examiner regarding the cause of death of the victims. Davis also failed to proffer in his Rule 32 petition or at his evidentiary hearing a single cross-examination question his trial counsels could have asked that would have impeached the State’s pathologist. Further, since Davis’s defense was that he did not participate in the shootings at Boswell, Sr.’s house, the Court cannot think of why challenging the State’s evidence of how the victims were murdered would have been beneficial to Davis’s defense. “Because Davis did not present any evidence to prove this allegation of ineffective assistance, the Court finds Davis has abandoned it. See Burgess v. State, [962 So.2d 272 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) ] (<HOLDING>). In the alternative, the Court finds Davis
holding burgess had abandoned claim his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to victimimpact evidence introduced at sentencing where he did not present evidence at the rule 32 hearing to support it 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 counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence holding trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence of the appellants good conduct in prison