The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Morrisette v. Warden (Order)
No. 040275Supreme Court of Virginia
040275 Morrisette v. Warden (Order) 06/03/2005 (Revised 11/04/2005) In considering a habeas corpus petition, the petitioner's various claims with respect to the guilt and penalty phases of his trial are reject…
Clerk language is kept verbatim. Vote Files does not infer who is winning.The movement
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The proof
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
040275 Morrisette v. Warden (Order) 06/03/2005 (Revised 11/04/2005) In considering a habeas corpus petition, the petitioner's var…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First seen
- Oct 4, 2026
- Last entry
- Jun 3, 2005
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
040275 Morrisette v. Warden (Order) 06/03/2005 (Revised 11/04/2005) In considering a habeas corpus petition, the petitioner's various claims with respect to the guilt and penalty phases of his trial are rejected as being procedurally defaulted or without substantive merit, but the failure of his attorney to object during the penalty phase to a verdict form omitting a required sentencing option, as mandated in Powell v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 512, 552 S.E.2d 344 (2001), constituted ineffective assistance of counsel prejudicial to the petitioner's defense. A limited grant of the writ is issued and the matter remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.
Open court document ↗Documents and links