Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 445.0

529US2

Unit: $U46

[10-07-01 17:18:24] PAGES PGT: OPIN

370

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR

Opinion of the Court

The jury found a probability of future dangerousness and
unanimously ﬁxed Williams’ punishment at death. The trial
judge concluded that such punishment was “proper” and
“just” and imposed the death sentence.
Id., at 154. The
Virginia Supreme Court afﬁrmed the conviction and sen-
tence. Williams v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 168, 360 S. E.
2d 361 (1987), cert. denied, Williams v. Virginia, 484 U. S.
1020 (1988).
It rejected Williams’ argument that when the
trial judge imposed sentence, he failed to give mitigating
weight to the fact that Williams had turned himself in. 234
Va., at 181–182, 360 S. E. 2d, at 369–370.

State Habeas Corpus Proceedings

In 1988 Williams ﬁled for state collateral relief in the
Danville Circuit Court. The petition was subsequently
amended, and the Circuit Court (the same judge who had
presided over Williams’ trial and sentencing) held an eviden-
tiary hearing on Williams’ claim that trial counsel had been
ineffective.3 Based on the evidence adduced after two days
of hearings, Judge Ingram found that Williams’ conviction
was valid, but that his trial attorneys had been ineffective
during sentencing. Among the evidence reviewed that had
not been presented at trial were documents prepared in con-
nection with Williams’ commitment when he was 11 years old
that dramatically described mistreatment, abuse, and neglect
during his early childhood, as well as testimony that he was
“borderline mentally retarded,” had suffered repeated head
injuries, and might have mental impairments organic in ori-
gin. App. 528–529, 595. The habeas hearing also revealed

3 While Williams’ petition was pending before the Circuit Court, Vir-
ginia amended its state habeas statute to vest in the State Supreme Court
exclusive jurisdiction to award writs of habeas corpus in capital cases.
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01–654(C)(1) (Supp. 1999). Shortly after the Circuit
Court held its evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court assumed jurisdic-
tion over Williams’ petition and instructed the Circuit Court to issue ﬁnd-
ings of fact and legal recommendation regarding Williams’ ineffective-
assistance claims.