Joshua Charles Lovell Moseley v. Harold W. Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
When Vhe Vwo SVaVe CoorVs arrive aV diVYemanV Conclusions in Vhe same case, should Vhe PeViVioner be given a new Vrial and legal principled o&ln Ola Vke same as a ceXuaWryj 35?
2. Xs \ V SVaVdard used in order "VoVal iVy principi 'ho he a burglary- grand larceny case?
3. Are unable Vo establish WaV Vhe PeViVioner exercised dominion and conVral over sVolen 'ferns Row one ha -found can go&h/ o~f gran A larceny and burglary?
4. TXe Supreme CoorV o-f Virginia SuSpec-h m <\n0VWr crime; ices Vhi dludgmen-V +o convicV^1 ru a SVaYed Vhe Vehih' S eVVec-V Vlnioner?
5. XX Vine Supreme CourV o-f Virginia SVaVes ' XV is ho-h f ^-H-er oX UvO we Can -f,'™} Vine PeViVioner beyond a reasonable dtoubYr" boV SViW Xbe CourV SiV aside ol law 3C(g u; \-|y i oner COOVM cVi p} aVC?
6. Coin ProSe-CvYor \nVrod a df-frank Xrial does oi CK Xalr Vrial ?prior charges of feV.VioneV Vln^s deprive Vbe PeViVioneren vee o»V?
When two state courts arrive at different conclusions using different governing legal principles on the same case, should the petitioner be given a rehearing?