concurring.
After our decision in Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420, the Supreme Court of Georgia, in cases remanded by this Court for further consideration in light of Godfrey, decided to ad*1000here to its prior position that a death penalty imposed on the basis of a plurality of aggravating circumstances, each of which has been established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, will not be set aside simply because one of those aggravating circumstances is vulnerable. See, e. g., Hamilton v. State, 246 Ga. 264, 271 S. E. 2d 173 (1980); Brooks v. State, 246 Ga. 262, 271 S. E. 2d 172 (1980); Collins v. State, 246 Ga. 261, 271 S. E. 2d 352 (1980).* Because the Georgia Supreme Court’s position is clear, and because I consider it consistent with this Court’s decisions, I think the Court has correctly decided to deny certiorari in both No. 79-6704 and No. 79-6615, even though similar cases were remanded to the Georgia Supreme Court for reconsideration immediately after we decided Godfrey.
In Brooks, the Georgia Supreme Court stated:
“Having reconsidered the facts of the present case as directed, this court now reaffirms on two, independent grounds, the appellant’s sentence of death for the murder of Carol Jeannine Galloway.
“First, in the present case, the jury’s verdict for the death sentence was predicated, not only on Code Ann. §27-2534.1 (b)(7), but also on Code Ann. § 27-2534.1 (b) (2) (the jury found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the murder was committed during the appellant’s commission of a rape and an armed robbery).
“ ‘Where two or more statutory aggravating circumstances are found by the jury, the failure of one circumstance does not so taint the proceedings as to invalidate the other aggravating circumstance found and the sentence of death based thereon.’ Gates v. State, 244 Ga. 587, 599 (261 SE 2d 349) (1979).
“Therefore, we reaffirm the appellant’s sentence of death on the ground that the jury’s finding of Code Ann. § 27-2534.1 (b) (2) was supported by legally sufficient evidence.” 246 Ga., at 263, 271 S. E. 2d, at 172-173. Justice Hill concurred only on the basis of the Gates rationale. Ibid.