because it concluded that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Venetie, announced subsequent to the remand, superseded previous law. The district court is correct, because the Supreme Court has held that when it applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, it is a controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on review, even if the events predated the announcement of the rule. See Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 96, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993); see also State v. Dick, 1999-NMCA-062, ¶¶ 13-14, 127 N.M. 382, 981 P.2d 796 (applying Venetie analysis on appeal of case in which trial court used Watchman analysis); cf. Clark v. Tansy 118 N.M. 486, 491, 882 P.2d 527, 532 (1994) (<HOLDING>). However, “[i]n applying federal law, [the
holding that when a habeas petitioner in a criminal case can show that there has been an intervening change of law relitigation of an issue decided adversely on direct appeal is not barred holding that a  2255 hearing is permitted on an issue previously addressed on direct appeal when there has been an intervening change in the law holding that an issue not raised on direct appeal of sentence is barred by the law of the case from presentation in a subsequent appeal holding that under the law of the case doctrine an issue of fact or law decided on appeal may not be reexamined by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal holding that defendant could not raise in a  2255 motion an issue previously decided on direct criminal appeal