Morva v. Warden (ORDER)
741 S.E.2d 781
Va.2013Background
- William Charles Morva was convicted in Washington County Circuit Court of multiple capital and related offenses, and sentenced to death on three counts.
- Virginia Supreme Court previously affirmed Morva’s convictions and death sentence in Morva v. Commonwealth (2009).
- Morva filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2010, challenging numerous trial and sentencing issues.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the habeas petition, denying relief.
- The Court analyzed each claim under Strickland v. Washington’s performance and prejudice framework and denied relief on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror disclosure and impartiality | Bouck concealed law-enforcement ties. | No disclosure affected impartiality; not proven. | Claim I denied; no merit shown. |
| Visible restraints and due process | Visible restraints violated due process and tainted trial. | Restraints were nonprejudicial and properly managed. | Claim II(A) barred; not cognizable on habeas review. |
| Counsel performance re restraints and safety | Counsel failed to object; restraints prejudiced defense. | Security measures were justified; no deficient performance. | Claim II(B) denied; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice. |
| Inadequate cross-examination and trial strategy | Counsel failed to impeach key witnesses and raise curative instructions. | Counsel’s decisions were strategic; not deficient. | Claim III denied in all parts. |
| Double jeopardy and multiple death sentences | Three death sentences violate double jeopardy as derivative. | Statutory offenses with separate elements allow multiple death sentences. | Claim VI(B) denied; no double jeopardy violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (due process requires impartial jury; voir dire duties)
- Slayton v. Parrigan, 215 Va. 27 (1974) (habeas review limitations; non-cognizable on petition)
- Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203 (2008) (security measures justified; not inherently prejudicial)
- Payne v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 216 (1999) (multiple punishments for distinct offenses permissible)
- Manetta v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 123 (1986) (trial strategy decisions; not to be second-guessed on habeas)
- Lewis v. Warden, 274 Va. 93 (2007) (evidence/presentation considerations in mitigation)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (right to expert assistance where needed)