Lamarre challenges a judgment entered by the court ('Warren, J.) denying him post-conviction relief from his conviction of two counts of aggravated trafficking of a schedule W drug within one thousand feet of a school (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 1105-A(1)(E)(1) (2012), and two counts of violating a condition of release (Class E), 15 M.R.S. § 1092(1)(A) (2012). Lamarre contends that the court erred in finding that Lamarre’s trial attorney provided effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND [¶ 2] The facts from Lamarre’s underlying trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, may no longer be disputed. See State v. Lamarre, Mem-11-16 (Feb. 8, 2011); see also State v. Carey, 2013 ME 88, ¶ 3, 77 A.3d 471; State v. Larrivee, 481 A.2d 782, 783 (Me.1984) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 3] Gina Clark was an opiate addict with
holding that a ruling from a prior decision of this court becomes the law of the case that cannot be challenged in a later proceeding quotation marks omitted holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals holding an unappealed ruling is the law of the case and cannot be later challenged holding that where a ruling on a demurrer to complaint is not appealed from it becomes the law of the case holding an appellate decision becomes the law of the case and is controlling on both the trial court and on any further appeals in the same case