Opinion ID: 2595198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Claims already decided by this court

Text: This court has already decided on the merits some of the grounds for relief raised in the instant petition. A court must dismiss a successive habeas petition in regard to such grounds, unless the petitioner proves specific facts that demonstrate good cause for presenting the claims again and actual prejudice. [34] The doctrine of the law of the case also precludes reconsideration of these claims. The law of a first appeal is the law of the case in all later appeals in which the facts are substantially the same, and that law cannot be avoided by more detailed and precisely focused argument made after reflecting upon previous proceedings. [35] Haberstroh complains that the prosecutor committed misconduct at the trial. However, in his direct appeal Haberstroh claimed that the prosecutor committed misconduct in the penalty phase, and this court rejected the claim. [36] This is now the law of the case. The parties stipulated that this issue should be considered on its merits, but that does not alter the force of the law of the case established by our prior decision. Haberstroh also contends that his conviction must be reversed because he was forced to choose between proceeding to trial with unprepared counsel or representing himself. This court has also considered and rejected this claim. [37] In addition, Haberstroh stipulated below that certain claims (numbered 4-7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19-21, 23-26, 33, and 34 in his district court habeas petition) already have been fairly presented to this court and rejected on the merits. Such a stipulation of fact is valid. [38] Haberstroh raises some of these claims on appeal [39] but has not shown good cause for presenting them again. Therefore, they also are precluded by the law of the case as well as procedurally barred. [40]