Buckner v. Barrow, 297 Ga. 68

Buckner was convicted under Georgia's Controlled Substances Act for trafficking MDMA and possession with intent to distribute (MDMA/ecstasy).
The Court of Appeals affirmed Buckner's convictions in 2013, rejecting multiple claims of error.
Buckner's brief in the direct appeal was deemed to have abandoned at least one claim for lack of meaningful argument.
Buckner then filed a habeas corpus petition alleging his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to preserve a claim of error.
The habeas court denied relief, the Warden conceded error, and the Georgia Supreme Court vacated the habeas judgment and remanded for reconsideration consistent with the opinion's ruling on preservation and law-of-the-case principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether law-of-the-case bars habeas reexamination of preserved issues	Buckner argues the habeas court could reconsider appellate preservation.	Warden argues the Court cannot revisit the direct-appeal preservation ruling.	Habeas court erred; remand to reconsider consistent with law-of-the-case.
Whether Buckner's ineffective-assistance claim on appeal was preserved and merits rehearing	Buckner asserts appellate counsel failed to preserve the claim.	State contends the preservation issue was not properly argued on appeal.	Remand for reconsideration; merits not decided.

Roulain v. Martin, 266 Ga. 353 (1996) (law-of-the-case governs habeas review of direct-appeal rulings)
Foster v. State, 290 Ga. 599 (2012) (law-of-the-case limitations on reexamination in habeas corpus)
Crowder v. State, 288 Ga. 739 (2011) (instruction on ineffective-assistance analysis on appeal)
Johnson v. Roberts, 287 Ga. 112 (2010) (application of ineffective assistance standards on direct appeal)
Harden v. Johnson, 280 Ga. 464 (2006) (permissible habeas review when direct-appeal determinations exist)