Opinion ID: 2975959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonable Grounds for Appeal

Text: The district court did not consider whether “a rational defendant would want to appeal” given Petitioner’s circumstances after his resentencing. (See J.A. 166 (“We are not concerned with the merits or wisdom of an appeal.”)) Nevertheless, under Flores-Ortega, Petitioner may show ineffective assistance of counsel if he can demonstrate that a rational defendant would have wanted to appeal at this stage in the process. 528 U.S. at 480. We believe, however, that Petitioner cannot make such a showing. In United States v. Adesida, 129 F.3d 846 (6th Cir. 1997), we held that “[t]he law-of-the-case doctrine bars challenges to a decision made at a previous stage of the litigation which could have been challenged in a prior appeal, but were not.” Id. at 850. In other words, once an appeal has been taken and a case has been returned to the trial court on remand, a party is precluded from raising any issues on second appeal which could have been raised on the first one (barring some new development on remand which should be addressed in a subsequent appeal). This law-of-the-case doctrine bound Petitioner in any appeal taken subsequent to his resentencing. In this case, Petitioner raised numerous issues in his first appeal, all but one of which were rejected by this Court. Stamper, 91 Fed.Appx. at 465. As the sole grounds for remanding 8 No. 06-6130 Petitioner’s case to the trial court for resentencing, we held that the trial court clearly erred in finding that Petitioner inflicted “serious bodily injury” on his victim, thus triggering a four-point enhancement. Id. at 464. It is also important to note, however, what this Court did not hold on appeal. Although we concluded that there was “no basis in the record” for a finding that Petitioner inflicted serious bodily injury, Id. at 465, we permitted the district court to gather additional evidence which would support such a finding on remand. See id. Similarly, we expressly held that “[t]he district court did not clearly err in finding that Cochran had sustained the prerequisite ‘bodily injury’ so as to trigger” a two-point sentencing enhancement. Id. at 464. In other words, we affirmed the finding of “bodily injury,” but remanded the issue of “serious bodily injury.” Accordingly, the best possible result Petitioner could have achieved on remand was a finding that he only inflicted “bodily injury” on his victim, thus triggering a mere two-point enhancement. On remand, the district court limited its inquiry to the narrow question of the extent of Cochran’s injuries. In litigating this narrow issue, Petitioner’s counsel successfully convinced the court to find that Petitioner only inflicted “bodily injury” on Cochran, thus obtaining the best possible result for his client. Furthermore, as this issue on remand was also the only issue in the case which could not also have been appealed immediately after Petitioner’s trial, the law-of-the-case doctrine prevented Petitioner from appealing any issue other than the question of whether or not he inflicted serious bodily injury on his victim. See Adesida, 129 F.3d at 850. Because the only result Petitioner could have obtained on appeal would have been equal to or less favorable than the one he already obtained at resentencing, a reasonable defendant would not have wanted to appeal under 9 No. 06-6130 these circumstances. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel must be denied.