was proper as to this claim. 3. Third, the appellant asserts that counsel did not “procure the necessary expert assistance to effectively challenge the State’s case.” (C.R. 215.) a. The appellant alleges that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not procuring a DNA expert. In relation to this claim, his entire argument in his petition consisted of the following: “Trial counsel was ineffective for not procuring a DNA expert to challenge the State’s expert who testified about the blood found on items admitted into evidence. It is well-established that DNA evidence has an awesome persuasive and prejudicial effect at a criminal trial, and for this reason, the standard for admission of DNA evidence must be strictly followed. Ex parte Hutcherson, 677 So.2d 1205, 1209 (Ala.1996) (<HOLDING>). “... For this reason, DNA evidence can only
holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence holding that the giving of an erroneous reasonable doubt instruction can never be harmless error holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record holding that the erroneous admission of dna evidence is never harmless