A jury found Charles Stanard Severance guilty of murdering three residents of Alexandria, Virginia. Severance received a separate punishment for each murder. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that two of his three punishments violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Court of Appeals disagreed. See Severance v. Commonwealth , 67 Va.App. 629, 799 S.E.2d 329 (2017). Severance now repeats that argument before this Court.1 We likewise disagree and affirm.
I.
In December 2003, Severance murdered Nancy Dunning. In November 2013, he murdered Ronald Kirby. In February 2014, he murdered Ruthanne Lodato. Severance committed various other crimes in addition to these murders,2 none of which are before us on appeal. All of his targeted victims were, as Severance put it, members of the "enforcement class" of society and the murders were part of his so-called "tomahawking [the] homestead" plan for retribution. R. at 6454. His three victims included the wife of an Alexandria sheriff, a regional transportation director, and a daughter of an Alexandria Circuit Court judge.
A grand jury issued a multi-count indictment against Severance. Two counts are relevant to this appeal. The first charged Severance with the capital murder of Kirby in 2013. The second charged him with the capital murder of Lodato in 2014. Both relied upon Code § 18.2-31(8), which deems "[t]he willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of more than one person within a three-year period" to be capital murder. A jury found Severance guilty of both charges, concluding that he murdered Kirby within three years of murdering Lodato and that he murdered Lodato within three years of murdering Kirby.
Prior to the sentencing phase of his trial, Severance argued that punishing him for two capital murder convictions under Code § 18.2-31(8)"would violate double jeopardy." J.A. at 16. After the trial court deferred ruling on the issue, the jury recommended life sentences for both capital murder convictions under Code § 18.2-31(8).3 Severance filed a motion to preclude sentencing for both capital murder convictions "[p]ursuant to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment." J.A. at 46.
In that motion, like his earlier objection at trial, Severance did not assert that the text of Code § 18.2-31(8) forbids capital murder convictions for the separate murders of Kirby and Lodato. Instead, invoking Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), Severance argued that convicting him for both murders under Code § 18.2-31(8) -which the statute did not prohibit-would be a constitutional violation *279of the prohibition against multiple punishments in the Double Jeopardy Clause only if he were punished for both convictions.
At a later hearing on Severance's double jeopardy motion, the trial court observed that the legislature
could have said that if a second murder is committed within three years, that second murder becomes a capital murder. In other words, they could have put in a temporal limitation which meant that only the second murder could be capital murder.
But by not putting in a temporal limitation, they elevated both murders. They elevated both the first and the second murder into capital murders. So it ... represents a legislative judgment that we would view that second murder as such a[n] additional grave act in light of the first murder, and an individual who committed that second murder ... [is] deemed to know that the legislature was going to treat that first murder as a capital murder as a result.
I mean, there's no reason for this Court to conclude that that doesn't represent a legislative judgment.
J.A. at 64-65. Severance's counsel responded, "I couldn't agree more. That is exactly right ...."4 Id. at 65.
The trial court rejected Severance's double jeopardy argument, convicted him of two counts of capital murder, and imposed two life sentences. In the Court of Appeals, Severance challenged the sentencing imposed for his two capital murder convictions solely on the ground that the constitutional "prohibition against double jeopardy precluded the trial court from sentencing [him] for both capital murder counts." Petition for Appeal at 60, Severance , 67 Va.App. 629, 799 S.E.2d 329 (Record No. 0308-16-4) [hereinafter CAV Pet.] (emphasis added); see also Appellant's Br. at 40, Severance , 67 Va.App. 629, 799 S.E.2d 329 (Record No. 0308-16-4) [hereinafter CAV Appellant's Br.].
In both his petition for appeal and opening brief before the Court of Appeals, Severance conceded that "the Commonwealth in this case was free to seek indictments for two counts [of] capital murder under [ Code §] 18.2-31(8) for the murders of Ruthann[e] Lodato and Ronald Kirby in order 'to supply the numerical ingredient' to charge capital murder of more than one person within a three-year period." CAV Pet. at 63 (citation omitted); see also CAV Appellant's Br. at 42. In his reply brief in the Court of Appeals, Severance again conceded that the Commonwealth could "indict a defendant for multiple capital murders when those murders occur within the same three-year period." Reply Br. at 8, Severance , 67 Va.App. 629, 799 S.E.2d 329 (Record No. 0308-16-4) [hereinafter CAV Reply Br.]. The Commonwealth, he added, may also "obtain[ ] convictions for each indictment."5 Id.
Despite the statute's authorization of separate indictments and convictions for each murder, Severance argued that the "imposition of capital sentences for both murders" violated the multiple-punishments doctrine inherent in the Double Jeopardy Clause. CAV Pet. at 63; see also CAV Appellant's Br. at 42-43. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that no double jeopardy violation occurred because Severance was not sentenced twice for the same crime. Instead, Severance received one sentence for one murder and another sentence for another murder-"separate murders that were committed months apart at separate locations." Severance , 67 Va.App. at 651, 799 S.E.2d at 339.
II.
A.
On appeal to us, Severance again concedes that "the Commonwealth in this case was *280free to seek indictments for two counts of capital murder under [Code] § 18.2-31(8) for the murders" of Kirby and Lodato "in order 'to supply the numerical ingredient' to charge capital murder [for the murder] of more than one person within a three-year period." Appellant's Br. at 10-11 (citation omitted). He does not argue-and has never argued-that Code § 18.2-31(8) itself forbids either charging or convicting a defendant for the capital murder of two separate victims within the three-year period.6 Instead, Severance claims only that "imposing capital sentences for each murder" violates his double jeopardy rights, and thus, "the Commonwealth should have elected which of the indictments it sought to proceed upon to seek a capital sentence ." Appellant's Br. at 11 (emphases added).
B.
Severance's multiple-punishments argument fails for several reasons. The most fundamental flaw is his reliance on Blockburger . By framing his argument this way, Severance asks the wrong question and, as a result, arrives at the wrong answer. As the Court of Appeals recognized, "the Blockburger test only applies when 'the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions.' " Severance , 67 Va.App. at 650-51, 799 S.E.2d at 339 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals is correct. "The assumption underlying the [ Blockburger test] is that [the legislature] ordinarily does not intend to punish the same offense under two different statutes." Whalen v. United States , 445 U.S. 684, 691-92, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980). It is only in this one-offense/two-statutes context that the problematic statutes "are construed not to authorize cumulative punishments in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent." Id. at 692, 100 S.Ct. 1432.
In this case, Severance committed two separate acts of murder, twice violating the same statutory provision. In light of "the two capital murders in th[is] case," the Court of Appeals correctly reasoned, "it is unnecessary to apply the Blockburger test." Severance , 67 Va.App. at 651, 799 S.E.2d at 339. "The fact that each murder provided the predicate offense for a conviction under Code § 18.2-31(8) does not limit appellant's liability for conviction and sentencing on both charges." Id. at 653, 799 S.E.2d at 340. There is "no temporal restriction mandating that the first of the two murders is a predicate murder and only the second is a capital murder."7 Id.
A criminal statute, either by its text alone or with the amplification of common-law presuppositions, determines the permissible unit of prosecution. See Johnson v. Commonwealth , 292 Va. 738, 741, 793 S.E.2d 321, 323 (2016) (determining the appropriate "unit of prosecution" by analyzing legislative intent (citation omitted) ). As Severance concedes, the Commonwealth can charge separate murders separately under Code § 18.2-31(8), and it necessarily follows that each charge for murder can result in a separate conviction under the statute.
Severance claims that, with or without Blockburger , overarching double jeopardy principles permit a court to impose punishment under Code § 18.2-31(8) for only one of those convictions for murder. We know of no precedent for this view. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declares that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const. amend. V.8 This constitutional guarantee provides protection against several forms of double jeopardy. See *281Commonwealth v. Gregg , 295 Va. 293, 811 S.E.2d 254, 257 (2018). In the simultaneous-prosecution context, the prohibition against double jeopardy protects against "multiple punishments for the same offense." Id. (citation omitted); see also Ex parte Lange , 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163, 168, 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874). "In the prosecution for two crimes in the same trial, the double jeopardy defense does not apply unless (a) the defendant is twice punished for one criminal act , and (b) the two punishments are either for the same crime or one punishment is for a crime which is a lesser included offense of the other." Coleman v. Commonwealth , 261 Va. 196, 200, 539 S.E.2d 732, 734 (2001) (third emphasis in original). This formulation of the doctrine tracks the historical view that "[t]o give our constitutional provision the force evidently intended, and to render it effectual, 'the same offence' must be interpreted as equivalent to the same criminal act." 1 Joel Prentiss Bishop, Bishop on Criminal Law § 1060, at 785 (John M. Zane & Carl Zollmann eds., 9th ed. 1923).
In this case, Severance was not punished twice for "one criminal act," Coleman , 261 Va. at 200, 539 S.E.2d at 734, because killing two victims at two different times in two different places constitutes two different criminal acts. In the words of the Fifth Amendment, Severance was not put in jeopardy "twice " for the "same offence ." U.S. Const. amend. V (emphases added). He was put in jeopardy twice for two criminal offenses based on two criminal acts: murdering Kirby within three years of murdering Lodato and murdering Lodato within three years of murdering Kirby-two murders, two convictions, two punishments.
C.
Taking a slightly different tack, Severance argues that the trial court unconstitutionally imposed multiple punishments on him because his convictions for the murders of Kirby and Lodato involved "the same elements," "the same proof," and "the same conduct." Appellant's Br. at 5. He relies on cases addressing multiple punishments imposed upon "identical conduct" or the "same act or transaction."9 See, e.g. , id. at 9, 12 (first citing Andrews v. Commonwealth , 280 Va. 231, 278, 699 S.E.2d 237, 264 (2010) ; and then citing Blockburger , 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. 180 ). Our colleague in dissent, analogizing to the "commutative law" in mathematics, joins Severance in this line of reasoning. See post at 283.10 We respectfully disagree.
It is true that some crimes involve discrete transactions rather than discrete acts . See generally John L. Costello, Virginia Criminal Procedure § 51.3 [4], at 811 (4th ed. 2008). Blockburger is the best-known example of this distinction. That case involved "two sales" of illegal narcotics that the defendant claimed constituted a single transaction. The United States Supreme Court held that each of the "several successive sales constitute[d] a distinct offense, however closely they may [have] follow[ed] each other." Blockburger , 284 U.S. at 302, 52 S.Ct. 180. The sales were not a single transaction because they did not arise from a "single" impulse. Id. "If successive impulses [were] separately given, even though all unite[d] in swelling a common stream of action, separate indictments lie." Id. (citation omitted). This reasoning alone *282undermines any conclusion that a pattern of discrete criminal acts can be cobbled together as a single transaction for purposes of determining whether multiple punishments were imposed in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Despite these well-established principles, Severance asserts that our holding in Andrews opens the door to his argument. We do not share this view of Andrews . In that case, the defendant killed two men during a robbery. Though he was convicted and sentenced for four capital murders, he argued that only two of the sentences violated the multiple-punishments doctrine: a sentence for killing "more than one person as part of the same act or transaction" under Code § 18.2-31(7) and a sentence for killing "more than one person within a three-year period" under Code § 18.2-31(8). See Andrews , 280 Va. at 278-79, 699 S.E.2d at 264. We explained that subsections (7) and (8) involve a predicate offense that serves to "elevate first degree murder to capital murder." Id. at 281, 699 S.E.2d at 265.
The gradation criterion of Code § 18.2-31(7) is proof of a predicate felony, the commission of a murder in the same act or transaction in which another, or several other, murders occur. The gradation criterion of Code § 18.2-31(8) likewise requires proof of the commission of at least two murders within a three-year period, each of which would constitute a predicate felony. It is obvious, however, that in many instances the same operative facts would be sufficient to prove either offense. In this sense, both offenses can be viewed as having gradation criteria defining the status of the defendant as having committed multiple homicides.
Id. at 281, 699 S.E.2d at 266.
The issue in Andrews was whether the defendant could be sentenced for capital murder convictions under two different statutory provisions when "all of the constituent crimes" under one provision, Code § 18.2-31(8), "also occur[red] as part of the same act or transaction" under the other provision, Code § 18.2-31(7). Andrews , 280 Va. at 282, 699 S.E.2d at 266. Because the two killings occurred in the "same act or transaction" of one robbery, we held that one criminal offense was wholly subsumed within the other.11
Andrews made clear that double jeopardy principles do not bar capital sentences for violations of both Code §§ 18.2-31(7) and 18.2-31(8) when at least one murder charged under subsection (8) "occurred as part of a separate act or transaction" from any other murders charged under subsection (7). 280 Va. at 288 n.19, 699 S.E.2d at 269 n.19. We later described our narrow holding in Andrews in exactly these terms. "[T]he double jeopardy prohibition against multiple punishments is violated when a defendant receives separate sentences under Code §§ 18.2-31(7) and (8) when each of the constituent murders for both convictions occurred as part of the same act or transaction ." Gray v. Warden of the Sussex I State Prison , 281 Va. 303, 304, 707 S.E.2d 275, 280 (2011) (emphasis added) (citing Andrews , 280 Va. at 287-88, 699 S.E.2d at 269-70 ).
In contrast to the situation in Andrews , Severance twice violated the same statutory provision by murdering two victims, with each murder serving as the "gradation criterion" for the other and neither murder occurring while he was engaged in the "same act or transaction," Andrews , 280 Va. at 281, 699 S.E.2d at 266. "[T]wo offenses arise out of the 'same act or transaction' if they are connected so closely 'in time, place and circumstance *283that a complete account of one charge cannot be related without relating details of the other charge.' " Id. at 285, 699 S.E.2d at 268 (quoting Woodfin v. Commonwealth , 236 Va. 89, 92, 372 S.E.2d 377, 379 (1988) ). The murders of Kirby and Lodato plainly do not fit these parameters.
In short, Severance was convicted and sentenced for two criminal acts: murdering Kirby within three years of murdering Lodato and murdering Lodato within three years of murdering Kirby. He committed these criminal acts at two separate dates and in two separate places, thus warranting punishment for two capital murder convictions. He committed "distinct and separate acts" that were "neither identical nor lesser-included [criminal offenses] for double jeopardy purposes," Martin v. Commonwealth , 221 Va. 720, 723, 273 S.E.2d 778, 780 (1981) ; see also Ohio v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 493, 500, 104 S.Ct. 2536, 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984) (holding that double jeopardy principles do not prohibit punishment for "multiple offenses in a single prosecution").
The disconnect in Severance's reasoning stems from his misplaced reliance on cases involving a single criminal act or transaction violating two criminal statutes-despite the fact that he committed two separate criminal acts that violated the same statute. Not one of the authorities he cites addresses this scenario, and for good reason: A criminal statute that allows separate convictions for separate criminal acts does not implicate, much less constitutionally offend, double jeopardy principles.
III.
In sum, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming Severance's convictions and sentences for the capital murder of two individuals within a three-year period in violation of Code § 18.2-31(8). We thus affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.