Severance v. Commonwealth

Severance · Supreme Court of Virginia · July 19, 2018 · No. Record No. 170829

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment upholding Charles Stanard Severance’s two capital murder convictions and separate life sentences under Code § 18.2-31(8). The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar separate punishments because the convictions arose from two distinct murders committed at different times and places, even though each murder served as the predicate for the other under the three-year-period provision. A dissent argued that the two convictions involved the same statutory offense and predicate conduct and therefore should not support separate punishments.

Court
Supreme Court of Virginia
Writing for the Court
Justice D. Arthur Kelsey; All the Justices
Jurisdiction
Virginia
Decision date
July 19, 2018
Docket number
Record No. 170829
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Court of Appeals of Virginia concerning whether imposing separate life sentences for two capital-murder convictions under Code § 18.2-31(8) violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Standard of review
De novo review of the constitutional double-jeopardy and multiple-punishments issue and the interpretation of Code § 18.2-31(8).
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Parties
Charles Stanard Severance v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

double jeopardycriminal procedurestatutory interpretationsentencingappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawconstitutional lawcriminal procedureappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits separate punishments for two capital-murder convictions under Code § 18.2-31(8) when the convictions are based on two separate murders committed within the same three-year period.
  2. Whether Blockburger applies when a defendant is convicted under the same statutory provision for separate criminal acts.
  3. Whether Andrews v. Commonwealth required the Commonwealth to elect one capital-murder conviction for sentencing.

Holdings

  1. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit separate punishments for two capital-murder convictions under Code § 18.2-31(8) when the convictions are based on two distinct murders committed at different times and places.
  2. The Blockburger test does not apply to Severance's claim because the case involves two separate criminal acts violating the same statutory provision, rather than one act or transaction violating two distinct statutory provisions.
  3. Code § 18.2-31(8) permits separate convictions and sentences for separate murders committed within the specified three-year period; the statute contains no temporal restriction making only the second murder capital murder.

Key quotations

He was put in jeopardy twice for two criminal offenses based on two criminal acts: murdering Kirby within three years of murdering Lodato and murdering Lodato within three years of murdering Kirby — two murders, two convictions, two punishments. (at 7)
A criminal statute that allows separate convictions for separate criminal acts does not implicate, much less constitutionally offend, double jeopardy principles. (at 11)

Factual background

Severance murdered Ronald Kirby in November 2013 and Ruthanne Lodato in February 2014, at separate times and locations. Both murders were charged as capital murder under Code § 18.2-31(8), which covers the willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of more than one person within a three-year period. He was convicted of both capital-murder charges and received a separate life sentence for each.

Procedural history

A jury convicted Severance of capital murder for killing Ronald Kirby and Ruthanne Lodato within a three-year period and recommended life sentences for both convictions. The trial court imposed two life sentences. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed, holding that double jeopardy did not bar separate sentences for separate murders committed at different times and locations. The Supreme Court of Virginia granted review solely on the double-jeopardy issue and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…