dissenting.
In 1988, Tharpe entered a guilty plea to a habitual violator traffic charge, for which he received and eventually served a probated sentence. In 1991, Tharpe was sentenced to death for his commission of a malice murder and, on his direct appeal, this Court affirmed. Tharpe v. State, 262 Ga. 110 (416 SE2d 78) (1992). In the sentencing phase of that capital case, the State introduced evidence of Tharpe’s habitual violator status as a non-statutory aggravating circumstance. In this habeas proceeding, Tharpe sought to challenge his conviction for that traffic offense despite its apparent mootness, urging that its use as evidence in his murder trial constitutes an adverse collateral consequence sufficient to permit him to attack its validity even after serving the probated sentence. See Zant v. Cook, 259 Ga. *599299, 300 (1) (379 SE2d 780) (1989); Parris v. State, 232 Ga. 687 (208 SE2d 493) (1974). The habeas court dismissed Tharpe’s petition as moot, but this Court now reverses. Although I do not agree with the reasoning of the habeas court, I nevertheless believe that the habeas court properly dismissed the petition because Tharpe cannot demonstrate, under established legal principles applicable here, that the traffic conviction has resulted in adverse consequences collateral to the sentence he has already served for that offense. In my opinion, therefore, the habeas court’s order of dismissal should be affirmed pursuant to the “right for any reason” principle.
Habeas corpus is a collateral civil remedy, and “is not intended to be a means for re-litigating a prisoner’s case. [Cits.]” Gibson v. Turpin, 270 Ga. 855, 857 (1) (513 SE2d 186) (1999). Therefore, issues which were raised and decided on the direct appeal of Tharpe’s conviction and sentence cannot be reasserted in a subsequent habeas proceeding. Gibson v. Turpin, supra at 857 (1); Turpin v. Mobley, 269 Ga. 635, 636 (1) (502 SE2d 458) (1998); Turpin v. Christenson, 269 Ga. 226, 227 (1) (497 SE2d 216) (1998). The admission of Tharpe’s habitual violator conviction into evidence was raised and addressed in the direct appeal of his murder conviction. Compare Zant v. Cook, supra (habeas permitted where no direct appeal was ever taken).
As Tharpe did not object on constitutional grounds to the introduction into evidence at the sentencing phase of a prior conviction based on a guilty plea (for violating the habitual offender law), any claim that the guilty plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently is waived. [Cit.]
Tharpe v. State, supra at 113 (8). This is a binding determination of procedural default which cannot be relitigated in a habeas proceeding. Roulain v. Martin, 266 Ga. 353 (1) (466 SE2d 837) (1996). A procedural bar can be overcome only by showing cause and prejudice or, in the alternative, a miscarriage of justice. White v. Kelso, 261 Ga. 32, 33 (401 SE2d 733) (1991).
However, this Court did not decide this particular claim only on the principle of waiver, but went further. “The admission of this plea would not rise to the level of harmful error under the circumstances surrounding it.” Tharpe v. State, supra at 113 (8). Thus, we have already made a binding determination that the introduction of Tharpe’s guilty plea into evidence had no effect on the jury’s decision as to Tharpe’s sentence. See generally Godfrey v. Francis, 251 Ga. 652, 654 (2) (308 SE2d 806) (1983); Stephens v. Balkcom, 245 Ga. 492 (2) (265 SE2d 596) (1980). “‘(O)ne who had an issue decided adversely to him on direct appeal is precluded from relitigating that issue on habeas corpus, (cit.). . . .’ [Cit.]” Roulain v. Martin, supra at *600353-354 (1). Because it was based upon the merits, this Court’s pronouncement that the traffic conviction had no prejudicial impact with regard to the imposition of the death sentence is res judicata and cannot be overcome.
Thus, in the context of a habeas proceeding challenging his death sentence, the principle of res judicata would preclude Tharpe from reasserting the introduction of the harmless evidence of the habitual violator conviction as a ground for relief. The only question presented for decision here is whether he can do the converse, and urge that his death sentence is an adverse consequence of the habitual violator conviction authorizing consideration of his habeas petition challenging that moot conviction.
If the introduction of the conviction for the traffic offense had no direct adverse consequence which might have contributed to the imposition of the death sentence, Tharpe cannot urge that the same sentence can be considered to be a collateral adverse circumstance in this proceeding. In fact, because this Court has determined previously that the sentence was not affected by the introduction of evidence of the traffic offense, it is not an adverse consequence for any post-conviction purposes instituted by Tharpe.
“It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence, arising from the very nature of courts of justice and the objects for which they are established, that a question of fact or of law distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot afterwards be disputed between the same parties!.] . . . The principle is as applicable to the decisions of criminal courts as to those of civil jurisdiction.” [Cit.]
Hall v. Scoggins, 202 Ga. 198, 201 (42 SE2d 763) (1947). Since Tharpe cannot contend that his traffic conviction had a negative impact on the return of the death sentence, he does not have “ ‘ “a substantial stake in [that] judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed on him.” ’ [Cit.]” Hardison v. Martin, 254 Ga. 719, 721 (1) (334 SE2d 161) (1985). Tharpe has nothing to gain in this proceeding, since in no event will a reversal of the traffic conviction mandate a reversal of the death sentence.
If, in this civil action, Tharpe is permitted to rely upon his death sentence as an adverse consequence of the introduction of his traffic offense, then he is, in effect, doing here what he could not do in a habeas challenge to that sentence. That violates the “general rule that one cannot do indirectly that which the law does not allow to be done directly.” Richmond County v. McElmurray, 223 Ga. 440, 443 (1) (156 SE2d 53) (1967). Because the Court today sanctions this anoma*601lous result, I dissent.
Decided July 10, 2000. Thomas H. Dunn, for appellant. Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paige R. Whitaker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.