or law exists as required by Rule 32.7(d); therefore, it is hereby denied. “... Duncan contends that counsel failed to ‘adequately’ object to the admission of gruesome and duplicative photographs. The one photograph he refers to is an enlarged photograph of the victim. He has offered no supporting facts to show what more counsel could have done, or how the outcome of his trial would have been different. Further, the substantive allegation was addressed and rejected on direct appeal by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Duncan v. State, 827 So.2d at 850-52. Because the underlying substantive issue was raised and addressed on direct appeal, Duncan cannot reliti- gate it under the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 133 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that the allegation ... fails
holding that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal precludes a finding of prejudice under strickland holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding petitioner demonstrates actual and substantial prejudice by proving a claim under strickland holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding regarding sixth amendment prejudice if there is no reasonable possibility that the appellate court would have ruled in his favor there can be no strickland prejudice