Whether the Georgia Supreme Court's opinion reversing the state habeas corpus court's reasoned grant of relief based on capital sentencing counsel's prejudicial ineffectiveness under Strickland v. Washington

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Georgia Supreme Court’s opinion reversing the state habeas corpus court’s reasoned grant of relief based on capital sentencing counsel’s prejudicial ineffectiveness under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984): (A) was contrary to this Court’s precedents; see Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 40 client with respect to mitigation does not relieve counsel of obligation to investigate and advise); Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 381 (2005)(“actively obstructive” client with respect to mitigation does not relieve counsel of obligation to investigate and advise); and (B) extended (and misapplied) this Court’s AEDPA decision in Schiro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007) in a non-AEDPA context? i