Re-Litigating the same claim cases: Courts from most states hold, not only that res judicata bars defendants from re-litigating issues that have been previously decided, but also that this same doctrine bars defendants from re-litigating issues that could have been raised in a prior appeal. See, for example: People v. Winsett, 153 Ill. 2d 335, 606 N.E.2d 1186, 1193, 180 Ill. Dec. 109 (Ill. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831, 114 S. Ct. 102, 126 L. Ed. 2d 68 (1993); Baird v. State, 688 N.E.2d 911, 915 (Ind. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 849, 119 S. Ct. 122, 142 L. Ed. 2d 99 (1998); In the Matter of Novaock, 1998 SD 3, 572 N.W.2d 840, 842 (S.D. 1998); Evans v. State, 892 P.2d 796, 797 (Wyo. 1995); Retherford v. State, 749 So. 2d 269, 273 (Miss. App. 1999); Patton v. State, 1999 OK CR 25, 989 P.2d 983, 985-86 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 939, 120 S. Ct. 347, 145 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1999); State v. Scudder, 131 Ohio App. 3d 470, 722 N.E.2d 1054, 1057 (Ohio App. 1998); Billings v. Maass, 86 Ore. App. 66, 738 P.2d 222, 223 (Or. App. 1987). But cf. James L. v. Commissioner of Correction, 245 Conn. 132, 712 A.2d 947, 953 n.11 (Conn. 1998); Brooks v. Board of Pardons and Paroles, 644 So. 2d 481, 482 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) (holding that the doctrine of res judicata does not strictly apply to habeas corpus proceedings; thus, a court has the authority, but is not obliged, to dismiss a habeas petition that raises issues that have already been decided). The United States Supreme Court has said the same thing.See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 478 n.10; 96 S. Ct. 3037, 3044 n.10; 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976) ("Nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on appeal, but were not, may not be asserted in collateral proceedings."); Sunal v. Large, 332 U.S. 174, 182; 67 S. Ct. 1588, 1593; 91 L. Ed. 1982 (1947) (absent extraordinary circumstances, the remedy of habeas corpus is not available to defendants "who accept the judgment of the trial court and do not appeal").