Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Gleason v. Com.
Citations: 726 S.E.2d 351; 284 Va. 166Docket: 111956
Court: Supreme Court of Virginia; June 7, 2012; Virginia; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Robert Charles Gleason, Jr., also known as Charles R. Flynn, received two death sentences after pleading guilty to the capital murders of Harvey Grey Watson and Aaron Cooper. Despite waiving his appeals of right, a mandatory review of his sentences was conducted under Code 17.1-313 to determine if they were influenced by passion, prejudice, or any arbitrary factors, and whether they were excessive or disproportionate compared to similar cases. On May 8, 2009, while incarcerated at Wallens Ridge State Prison, Gleason murdered his cellmate Watson in a premeditated act, employing various brutal methods including binding, beating, and ultimately strangling him with fabric. He confessed to planning the murder specifically on the anniversary of a previous homicide he committed and showed no remorse throughout the proceedings. Following this incident, Gleason was placed in solitary confinement. On July 28, 2010, while in a recreation pen, Gleason killed another inmate, Aaron Cooper, by strangling him through a shared wire fence. He later admitted that he targeted Cooper to send a message to the prosecutor and to gain favor from another inmate. Gleason pled guilty to both murders, and a joint sentencing proceeding was held, during which the court considered evidence, arguments, and a pre-sentence report, which Gleason waived. Gleason's death sentences were affirmed, with the court finding aggravating factors of vileness and future dangerousness established beyond a reasonable doubt, and noting that these were not outweighed by any mitigating circumstances. Despite Gleason waiving his right to appeal, a statutory review was conducted. The review evaluated whether the death sentences were influenced by passion, prejudice, or arbitrary factors, as outlined in Code § 17.1-313(C)(1). The court found no evidence of such influences, with Gleason's counsel admitting a lack of evidence supporting claims of bias. The circuit court meticulously ensured Gleason's competency, provided consistent access to stand-by counsel, and granted all requests for continuances and expert appointments. The court emphasized that its considerations were strictly limited to statutory factors. In the proportionality review mandated by Code § 17.1-313(C), the court concluded that the death sentences were not excessive or aberrant. Both murders were premeditated and involved particularly cruel methods, including ligature strangulation and torture. Gleason's post-crime behavior demonstrated a lack of remorse and a continued danger to society, as he exhibited dispassion following the killings and articulated intentions to kill again, even while incarcerated. The review involved an analysis of prior cases where death sentences were imposed for capital murders by inmates, specifically referencing cases such as Remington, Lenz, and Payne. It also considered instances of multiple murders within three years, citing Andrews, Muhammad, and Walker. Additionally, cases involving aggravating factors of future dangerousness and vileness leading to death sentences for premeditated killings by ligature strangulation were examined, including cases against Bramblett and multiple cases against Spencer. The review also included instances where life imprisonment was the sentence instead of death. Upon reviewing Gleason's actions and the relevant case law, it was concluded that Gleason's death sentences were not influenced by passion, prejudice, or arbitrary factors, and were found to be neither excessive nor disproportionate. The judgments of the circuit court were affirmed for both records 111956 and 111957.