Carroll Edward Gregg, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
67 Va. App. 375
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gregg was convicted after a jury trial of common law involuntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter under Code §18.2-154 for a single fatal shooting during a repossession attempt on June 4, 2014; the jury sentenced him to 10 years on each conviction; appellant appeals on double jeopardy grounds arguing cumulative punishment for the two offenses.
- Facts show L&K Recovery repossessed a truck; Sanchez and Marin attempted recovery; a lockout opened the truck alarm; gunfire occurred; Sanchez died; appellant admitted shooting at the tow truck and later claimed accidental shooting and that repossession teams should not operate at night.
- Appellant was charged with murder (unqualified as to degree), use of a firearm in the commission of murder, and involuntary manslaughter by shooting into an occupied vehicle; jury instructions allowed a finding of involuntary manslaughter either under common law or under Code §18.2-154; verdict forms reflected two involuntary manslaughter convictions and two corresponding ten-year sentences.
- At trial, double jeopardy motions were heard; the trial court initially held that Blockburger analysis applied and denied the motion; Holley v. Commonwealth (en banc) was cited as potentially controlling by appellant but deemed distinguishable by the Commonwealth; the appellate court later considers whether legislative intent authorizes multiple punishments.
- The Virginia Court of Appeals reverses/remands the two ten-year sentences, holding that there is no clear legislative intent to allow cumulative punishments and that Blockburger analysis shows the offenses do not require proof of different facts; the court remands for a penalty-determination proceeding where the Commonwealth must elect which conviction to rely on, vacating the other.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Code §18.2-154 and common law involuntary manslaughter permit cumulative punishments for a single death? | Gregg argues no legislative intent to authorize two punishments. | Commonwealth contends Blockburger shows two distinct offenses. | No; no legislative intent for cumulative punishments; Blockburger confirms overlap. |
| What is the proper remedy for the double jeopardy violation? | Remand for penalty determination with election between convictions. | N/A (not explicitly argued in this section) | Remand to elect between the Code §18.2-154 and common law involuntary manslaughter convictions; vacate the other. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for multiple punishment: each offense requires proof of an additional fact not present in the other)
- Holley v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 156 (2014) (en banc; not controlling where statutes suggest distinct legislative intent; discusses unitary prosecution theory)
- Payne v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 531 (2009) (legislative intent permitting multiple punishments for same course of conduct recognized)
- West v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 273 Va. 56 (2007) (common law involuntary manslaughter vs aggravated involuntary manslaughter; Blockburger analysis applied)
- Andrews v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 231 (2010) (legislative intent analysis in double jeopardy context)
- Blythe v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 722 (1981) (framework for testing double jeopardy when multiple punishments are at issue)