Tag Archives: gonzales v crosby

This Mallard Is Not A Duck, 6th Circuit Holds – Update for June 6, 2024

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT THIS 60(b) NOT BE CALLED A DUCK
Except when it's not...
Except when it’s not…

Ever since the Supreme Court’s 2005 Gonzalez v. Crosby decision, people who try to use F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) as a means of getting the denial of a 28 USC § 2255 post-conviction motion reconsidered have run into a brick wall. If the Rule 60(b) motion was challenging the underlying conviction at all rather than an infirmity in the 2255 proceeding (and they almost always are), the 60(b) was deemed to be a second 2255 motion and was kicked to the Court of Appeals (where it was almost always spiked).

But sometimes, justice’s cries are so loud that they are heard.

Roy West is serving a life sentence for a murder-for-hire conviction that now, even his sentencing judge describes like this:

Errors on the part of competent people — prosecutors, defense counsel, probation officers and, ultimately, this judge at the time of sentencing — resulted in the imposition on Roy of a sentence in violation of the law. Even skilled appellate counsel failed to raise the sentencing error.”

habeas_corpusNot that Roy hasn’t tried. He filed a 2255 years ago, arguing that “counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a causation defense. The district court denied that motion, however, explaining incorrectly that death was ‘not an element of this offense.’ Years later, the district court, “now aware of the defect in West’s conviction” granted him compassionate release, “concluding that justice and faith in our judicial system demand correcting West’s sentence.” The 6th Circuit reversed, holding that compassionate release could not be used “as a vehicle for second or successive § 2255 motions.”

Roy then filed a Rule 60(b) motion, asking that the 2255 be reopened. He focused on the “injustice to himself and the risk to public confidence in the judicial process that could accrue were his unconstitutional life sentence permitted to stand,” noting that the district court had already admitted that his sentence was wrong. The Government fought the 60(b), demanding that it be dismissed as a second 2255 regardless of the fact that James’ sentence was unlawful. The district court agreed and transferred it to the 6th Circuit.

Last week, the 6th Circuit decided that while the 60(b) may waddle, quack, and fly like a second 2255, justice demands that it not be deemed a second 2255.

“Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, in limited circumstances,” the Court said, citing Gonzalez v. Crosby. “The Rule enumerates five specific instances in which relief may be warranted, followed by a catchall covering “any other reason that justifies relief.” Relief under the catchall provision may be granted in ‘extraordinary circumstances’.”

Extraordinary circumstances “rarely occur in the habeas context,” the Circuit said, “but they are not unheard of. Courts considering whether extraordinary circumstances exist “may consider a wide range of factors,” including “the risk of injustice to the parties and the risk of undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process.”

duckcow240606

Roy’s arguments of injustice, of risk to public confidence, that the district court’s acknowledgment that the sentence was wrong and that the “Government’s conduct in this case raises the specter of fraud on the court,” were the extraordinary circumstances needed to make a Rule 60(b) motion appropriate despite Gonzalez v. Crosby. The case was sent back to the district court to decide the 60(b) motion.

In re W, Case No 23-1792, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12826 (6th Cir. May 29, 2024)

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 162 L. Ed. 2d 480 (2005)

– Thomas L. Root

5th Circuit Pummels § 2255 Petitioner in Pair of Cases – Update for October 30, 2018

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

LISAStatHeader2small

5th CIRCUIT DEALS TWO SETBACKS TO 2255 PROCEDURE

The 5th Circuit handed down a pair of 2255 procedural decisions last week that complicate matters for inmates seeking post-conviction relief in that circuit.

siegfried181101Every inmate law library denizen knows that if the district court denies a 2255, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure let the defendant file a motion to alter the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). It seems like a free bite of the apple: you get to reargue your position, and a timely-filed 59(e) stops the clock running on the appeal deadline.

But, it turns out, a 59(e) motion is not free of cost. Andre McDaniels found that out last week. After the district court denied his 2255, which was based on ineffectiveness of counsel, Andre filed a Rule 59(e) motion that argued the court had erred in refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing. That motion also was denied. Andre got a certificate of appealability from the 5th Circuit, but the government complained the Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Supreme Court’s 2005 Gonzalez v. Crosby decision held that Rule 60(b) motions filed in 2255 cases seeking “to add a new ground for relief” or “attack the federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits” is a second-or-successive 2255 petition. A motion that merely targets a procedural defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings, however, remains a bona fide Rule 60 motion over which a district court has jurisdiction.

Circuit courts are applying Gonzalez to Rule 59 motions filed in 2255 the allegations that he had made in the 2255 motion, and complained the district court had erred in dismissing the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The 5th Circuit ruled that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Andre’s substantive claims under the 5th and 6th Amendments. Because they attacked the district court’s previous ruling on the merits, they constituted a successive habeas application.

However, his claim that the district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing was not an attack on the decision on the merits, but rather on the proper procedure used by the district court in the 2255 proceeding. Andre was able to go forward on that issue.

In a separate decision, the 5th Circuit weighed in on a circuit split on the meaning of 28 USC 2244(d)(1)(D). That statute permits second-and-successive 2255 motions in some cases, including newly discovered evidence. The 5th Circuit held that to show there is newly-discovered evidence, a defendant must “establish that the affidavits were unavailable to trial counsel at the time of trial.” A number of other circuits hold only that the evidence must be “reliable evidence that was available but not presented at trial.”

grasp181101The Circuit ruled that movant Jamal Hancock failed to show his evidence was newly discovered, because “it was always within the reach of petitioner’s personal knowledge or reasonable investigation.” The Court admitted it had not previously “decided what affirmatively constitutes ‘new’ evidence,” but it has “explained what does not.” Jamal’s affidavits did not show the witness affidavits were unavailable to his attorney at the time of trial, and therefore the Court held that Jamal had offered no “new” evidence.

United States v. McDaniels, Case No. 16-20508 (5th Cir., Oct. 26, 2018)

United States v. Hancock, Case No. 16-20662 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small