Gray v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 707 S.E.2d 275

Gray was convicted in Richmond Circuit Court of capital murder related to four-family killings during a home invasion robbery and received death sentences for two §18.2-31(12) counts and life for three other capital counts.
The Virginia Supreme Court previously affirmed the convictions and death sentence in 2007; the current proceeding is a habeas corpus petition filed March 14, 2008 seeking relief.
Claim (IV): Gray alleged ineffective assistance for failure to raise a double jeopardy issue by obtaining sentences under §18.2-31(7) and (8) for murders arising from the same act; trial counsel allegedly advised incorrectly and failed to appeal this ground.
The Court finds merit to claim (IV) and grants habeas relief as to life sentences under §18.2-31(7) and (8), remanding to vacate one underlying conviction to avoid double punishment.
The remainder of the petition is dismissed, including claims concerning Brady/Napue violations, Detective Peterman’s testimony, closing argument misstatements, jury instructions, juror issues, and sentencing mitigation evidence.
The Court expressly remands only the §18.2-31(7) and (8) convictions; all other claims are denied and the writ is granted in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy and multiple punishments	Gray—counsels’ failure to raise- and trial’s imposition of separate life sentences for §18.2-31(7) and (8) violations arising from same act.	Commonwealth—multiple convictions permitted since distinct statutory provisions applied to separate elements/counts.	Writ granted; vacate one underlying conviction to cure double jeopardy.
Brady/Napue material concealment and false representations	Suppression/misrepresentation of material evidence affected penalty and reliability of trial.	No material suppression or false representation; evidence not material to guilt/sentencing.	Claim rejected on merits; no Brady/Napue violation established.
Cumulative ineffective assistance of counsel and mitigation strategy	Counsel failed to present extensive mitigating evidence and to investigate factors affecting life-vs-death outcome.	Counsel reasonably selected mitigation; additional witnesses would not have changed outcome.	Claims rejected individually; no reasonable probability of different result; except overall remand on double jeopardy issue.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard with performance and prejudice prongs)
Andrews v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 231 (2010) (double jeopardy limits on multiple punishments under §18.2-31(7) and (8))
Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (1985) (double jeopardy considerations in multiple convictions)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (false statements by government agents and materiality)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of exculpatory evidence violates due process)
Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980) (vileness instruction sufficiency and Godfrey line of cases)
Juniper v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 362 (2006) (limits on required jury mitigating-instruction under Godfrey framework)
Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987) (defendant presence at critical proceedings when relevant to fairness)
Jackson v. Warden, 271 Va. 434 (2006) (mitigating evidence and sentencing considerations)
Teleguz v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 458 (2007) (materiality and suppression standards in habeas context)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (applies to sentencing factors and jury determinations)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury sentencing qualification principles)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Sixth Amendment and sentencing procedure framework)