"It is well settled that ‘an appellant may not raise a new issue for the first time in a reply brief.’" L.J.K. v. State, 942 So. 2d 854, 868 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005), quoting, in part Woods v. State, 845 So. 2d 843, 846 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002).

" L.J.K. v. State, 942 So.2d 854, 868 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), quoting, in part Woods v. State, 845 So.2d 843, 846 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). Section 12-21-222 provides: "A conviction of felony cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and such corroborative evidence, if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof, is not sufficient."

Moreover, on appeal, Bennison fails to satisfy Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.App. P., because, although her argument contains one citation to authority, she fails to assert how that authority supports her claim. In L.J.K. v. State, 942 So.2d 854 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), this Court stated: “This argument fails to comply with Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.App. P. Although [the appellant] cites legal authority in support of [her] claim, [she] fails to provide any argument whatsoever as to how that authority is relevant to and supportive of [her] allegation.... As noted above, ‘[m]erely citing a case with no discussion as to its relevance is insufficient to satisfy Rule 28(a)(10).’

In addition, federal habeas courts in Alabama routinely treat claims dismissed pursuant to Rule 28(a)(10) as procedurally defaulted.See, e.g., Jimmy Day Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Smith, 964 So.2d 1, 9 (Ala. 2007) (noting it is “well settled that a failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 28(a)(10) . . . provides this Court with a basis for disregarding those arguments”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So.2d 1, 20 (Ala. 2003); Ex parte Showers, 812 So.2d 277, 281 (Ala. 2001); L.K.J. v. State, 942 So.2d 854, 869 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); Hamm v. State, 913 So.2d 460, 486 (Ala.Crim.App.2002); see also Taylor v. Dunn, No. CV-14-439-WS-N, 2018 WL 575670, at *15 n.19 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 25, 2018) (collecting cases).See, e.g., Shipp v. Myers, No. 5:15-cv-669-AKK-JHE, 2018 WL 1702410, at *9 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 26, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 1583170 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 30, 2018); James v. Culliver, No. CV-10-S-2929-S, 2014 WL 4926178, at *14 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 30, 2014), aff'd, James v. Warden, 957 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2020); Taylor v. Dunn, 2018 WL 575670, at *19; Davis v. Carter, No. 1:16-cv-774-WKW-SMD, 2019 WL 2608360, at *6 n.8 (M.D. Ala. May 30, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 2606895, at *1 (M.D. Ala. June 25, 2019).

See, e.g., Jimmy Day Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Smith, 964 So. 2d 1, 9 (Ala. 2007); Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So. 2d 1, 20 (Ala. 2003); Ex parte Showers, 812 So. 2d 277, 281 (Ala. 2001); Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So. 2d 248, 251 (Ala. 1994); L.K.J. v. State, 942 So. 2d 854, 869 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005); Hamm v. State, 913 So. 2d 460, 486 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002); O'Neal v. State, 494 So. 2d 801, 803 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). 6. Overcoming procedural default

See Steele v. Rosenfeld, LLC, 936 So.2d 488, 493 (Ala. 2005) (noting that " ‘an argument may not be raised, nor may an argument be supported by citations to authority, for the first time in an appellant's reply brief.’ Improved Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks v. Moss, 855 So.2d 1107, 1111 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003), abrogated on other grounds, Ex parte Full Circle Distribution, L.L.C., 883 So.2d 638 (Ala. 2003)"); see also Meigs v. Estate of Mobley, 134 So.3d 878, 889 n. 6 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (noting that " Rule 28(a)(10) [, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] requires compliance in an appellant's initial brief"); and L.J.K. v. State, 942 So.2d 854, 868 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) (noting that citation to legal authority for the first time in reply brief is the equivalent of raising an issue for the first time in that brief). Accordingly, Patricia is deemed to have waived her argument that the circuit court erred in failing to remove the administrator ad litem in this case.

After the Jackson Hospital defendants identified this deficiency, Anderson attempted to correct it in her reply brief; however, that attempt comes too late. As the Court of Criminal Appeals explained in L.J.K. v. State, 942 So.2d 854, 868–69 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) :“ ‘Recitation of allegations without citation to any legal authority and without adequate recitation of the facts relied upon has been deemed a waiver of the arguments listed.’

Our conclusion that J.G.'s statements are testimonial is consistent with the decisions of other courts. L.J.K. v. Alabama, 942 So.2d 854, 861 (Ala. 2005) (statements of four-year-old and six-year-old children to a state-employed child abuse investigator were testimonial); T.P. v. State, 911 So.2d 1117, 1123 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004) (child's statements to a social worker in the presence of a police investigator were testimonial); People v. Sisavath, 118 Cal.App.4th 1396, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 753, 757-58 (2004) (child's statement to interview specialist at a private victim assessment center, made in the presence of the prosecuting attorney and district attorney's investigator, was testimonial); People v. Sharp, 155 P.3d 577, 579-82 (Colo.Ct.App. 2006) (five-year-old's videotaped interview with private forensic interviewer was testimonial where a police detective arranged the interview and interviewer asked questions requested by the detective); In re Rolandis G., 352 Ill.App.3d 776, 288 Ill.Dec. 58, 817 N.E.2d 183, 188 (2004) (statements to private child abuse investigator while police officer watched through one-way glass were testimonial); St

on to a general principle of law without specific relevance to her action against financial services company was insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 28(a)(10) to cite relevant authority in support of arguments); Hall v. Hall, 903 So.2d 78 (Ala. 2004) (the appellant cited no authority for the proposition that the checking account should have been included as an asset of the estate and presented no argument and cited no authority to support his conclusion that the ore tenus rule did not require an affirmance on this issue); and Ex parte Gonzalez, 686 So.2d 204 (Ala. 1996) (petitioner did not show a clear legal right to having capital-murder indictment quashed on the ground that the district attorney testified as a witness in front of the grand jury when the petitioner cited only a federal district court case that was not binding authority and that was distinguishable). At least three members of the Court of Criminal Appeals have questioned the scope and application of Rule 28, Ala. R.App. P. U.K. v. State, 942 So.2d 854, 869 and 871 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005)(Shaw, J., concurring specially, and Baschab, J., concurring in the result, with Cobb, J., joining).Were Borden's Juror-Misconduct Claims Preserved for Appellate Review?

Morris v. State, 261 So. 3d 1181, 1198 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016) ("[The appellant] has provided no recitation of the facts relied upon in support of his argument; he merely refers to the record without setting forth any facts regarding why he believes he was entitled to relief. ‘[M]erely referring to the record without setting forth the facts in support of an argument is not sufficient to comply with Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P.’ L.J.K. v. State, 942 So. 2d 854, 868 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)."). Except for the claim about the alleged lack of notice, this Court on direct appeal addressed the issues on which Largin bases these ineffectiveness claims and held that they lacked merit.