Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): “improper definition of reasonable doubt.” (Claim I.C.4, paragraph 51, of Boyd’s petition.) 23. Boyd alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object, during the penalty phase of the trial, to the prosecutor’s “expressions of his personal opinion of [Boyd’s] sentence.” (Claim I.D.2, paragraph 62, of Boyd’s petition.) 24. Boyd alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object, during the penalty phase of the trial, to the prosecutor’s comments “deni-grat[ing] ... the jury’s role in the sentencing process.” (Claim I.D.2, paragraphs 63-64, of Boyd’s petition.) Claims presented in a Rule 32 petition but not pursued on appeal are deemed to be abandoned. See Brownlee v. State, 666 So.2d 91, 93 (Ala.Crim.App.1995)(<HOLDING>). See also, e.g., Charest v. State, 854 So.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that issues not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived (B) holding that issues not argued in initial brief are deemed waived (C) holding that we will not review issues not listed and argued in brief (D) holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief (E) holding issues argued orally but not addressed in brief were waived
Output (English): holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief