the case solely on the evidence presented at trial. During individual voir dire James stated that she had read about the case when it first occurred, but that she did not remember an awful lot. (R. 191) She also stated that she had no opinion about the case, and that she could set aside what she knew and decide the case fairly and impartially. (R. 191). “... Similarly, Ms. Sterling said she had heard a news flash on the radio driving in for jury duty, but she had no opinion about the case. She said she could set aside any prior knowledge and decide the case on the evidence presented at trial. (R. 228). Clearly, Duncan’s bold assertions of bias and prejudice! ] against these jurors are directly refuted by the record. See Gibby v. State, 753 So.2d 1206, 1207-1208 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999) (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that these allegations fail
holding that a trial courts failure to hold a sheppard hearing may be considered harmless if the allegations in the rule 3170z motion are conclusively refuted by the record holding that postconviction allegations directly refuted by the trial record are without merit 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 holding that misadvice of counsel as to the length of a sentence is a basis for postconviction relief if not refuted by the record