Buckner v. Barrow

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that a habeas court was bound by the Court of Appeals' determination that appellate counsel failed to make a sufficient legal argument to preserve a claim of error. The court vacated the habeas decision and remanded for reconsideration of the ineffective-assistance claim consistent with the law-of-the-case doctrine, without deciding its merits.

Holdings

1. Under the law of the case doctrine, when an issue is raised and resolved on direct appeal from a criminal conviction, the habeas court is bound by the appellate ruling and may not reexamine it, even if the ruling appears erroneous or concerns whether a claim was preserved for review.
2. The court did not decide whether Buckner's ineffective-assistance claim had merit; instead, it remanded for the habeas court to reconsider the claim consistently with the Court of Appeals' prior determination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the habeas court could find that appellate counsel made a sufficient legal argument when the Court of Appeals had already determined on direct appeal that counsel failed to make a meaningful argument sufficient to preserve the claim.
2. Whether Buckner was entitled to habeas relief on his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Disposition

vacated