I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the record supports the post-conviction relief (PCR) judge’s findings that the jury charge given at respondent’s trial violated the Due Process Clause. Further, I find there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instructions in a way that violates the *404Constitution. Accordingly, I would affirm the PCR judge’s order granting respondent a new trial.
This matter comes before the Court in an unusual procedural posture. In 1998, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the circuit court with instructions that the case be treated as one involving a claim for PCR, and that the issue to be decided was whether “the reasonable doubt instruction given in [respondent’s] trial was unconstitutional.... ” Todd v. State, 98-UP-252 (S.C. Ct.App. filed May 18, 1998). To the extent the State now argues that we should decide whether the reasonable doubt charge cases decided since respondent was tried should be applied retroactively, its argument comes too late. The State did not seek certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ 1998 decision, and therefore the law of this case is that the “Cage-Victor ”4 standard applies retroactively. See, e.g., ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 489 S.E.2d 470 (1997) (unchallenged ruling, whether correct or not, is law of the case). Further, because this case comes before us in the posture of a PCR’certiorari, we must uphold the factual findings in the order if supported by any probative evidence in the record. E.g., Tate v. State, 351 S.C. 418, 570 S.E.2d 522 (2002).
The PCR judge found, correctly in my view, that the charge given in respondent’s trial unconstitutionally diluted the State’s burden to prove respondent guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the PCR judge found the charge instructed the jury that: (1) reasonable doubt was synonymous with moral certainty; (2) reasonable doubt meant a “doubt which honest people, such as you, when searching for the truth can give a real reason” and (3) it was required to seek some reasonable explanation other than the accused’s guilt when considering the circumstantial evidence in this case. The majority view, in my opinion, minimizes the multiple deficiencies in the charges by stressing only the ‘moral certainty’ language. The majority then holds that the ‘robe of righteousness’ portion of the instructions, coupled with the ‘good’ *405circumstantial evidence charge, effectively cured any constitutional infirmities. I disagree.
In State v. Manning, 305 S.C. 413, 409 S.E.2d 372 (1991), we approved a circumstantial evidence charge derived from earlier decisions:
[EJvery circumstance relied upon by the State [must] be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and ... all of the circumstances so proven [must] be consistent with each other and taken together, point conclusively to the guilt of the accused to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis. It is not sufficient that they create a probability, though a strong one and if, assuming them to be true they may be accounted for upon any reasonable hypothesis which does not include the guilt of the accused, the proof has failed.
Id., citing State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E.2d 888 (1989), citing State v. Littlejohn, 228 S.C. 324, 89 S.E.2d 924 (1955).
In contrast, the circumstantial evidence charge given in respondent’s trial was:
Circumstantial evidence is good, provided it meets the legal test to the extent that the State relies on circumstantial evidence. It must prove all the circumstances relied on beyond a reasonable doubt. They must be wholly and in every particular perfectly consistent with one another. They must point conclusively, that is, to the moral certainty to the guilt of the accused to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis, that is, they must be absolutely inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
In other words, in the consideration of circumstantial evidence, the jury must seek some reasonable explanation thereof other than the guilt of the accused, and if such reasonable explanation can be found, you cannot convict on such evidence. Of course, you can consider the circumstantial evidence along with all the direct evidence that you heard from this witness stand.
I charge you further that the mere fact that the circumstances are strongly suspicious and the defendant’s guilt probable, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction because *406the proof offered by the State must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt, and must satisfy you the jury of that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The two phrases “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and, “proof to a moral certainty” are synonymous and the legal equivalent of each other.
(emphasis supplied).
Viewing the circumstantial evidence charge here in its entirety, I disagree with the majority’s characterization of this charge as “almost verbatim” the Edivards charge approved in State v. Manning, supra. In my opinion, respondent’s circumstantial evidence charge was riddled with burden shifting language and cannot be said to ‘remedy’ other constitutional infirmities in the charge.
I find there is some evidence of probative value in the record to support the PCR judge’s finding that the charge unconstitutionally lessened the State’s burden of proof. This factual finding should therefore be upheld. Tate v. State, supra.
The more difficult issue in this case is whether it can be said “there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution.” State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27, 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000).5 In Aleksey, we found no reversible error where the trial judge made a single isolated reference to the jury’s “duty to seek the truth” in the context of the charge on witness credibility. Here, however, the charge is rife with constitutional error, especially in the context of the circumstantial evidence portion, in a case in which the State relied largely on circumstantial evidence to prove respondent assaulted the victim with the intent to commit first degree criminal sexual conduct, and *407then killed her. I would therefore affirm the.PCR judge’s order granting respondent a new trial.
. Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990); Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994).
. The PCR judge decided this case before we issued our opinion in Aleksey, and therefore applied the less rigorous pre-Aleksey standard: whether a reasonable juror could have interpreted the instruction to allow a finding of guilt based on a degree of proof below that required of the Due Process Clause. State v. Manning, supra. Given the protracted nature of this litigation, I agree that we should decide the question presented under the Aleksey standard rather than remand the case to the circuit court with instructions to redecide the matter applying the correct standard.