Antonio Franklin v. Charlotte Jenkins
839 F.3d 465
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 1997 Antonio Franklin killed family members, was convicted in Ohio, and sentenced to death after a trial where he displayed bizarre courtroom behavior and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Franklin raised ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims on direct appeal (arguing counsel should have sought a midtrial competency hearing); Ohio courts rejected relief and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Franklin filed a federal habeas corpus petition; the district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief; the Sixth Circuit affirmed in 2012, relying on the state-court record (Pinholster limited new federal-evidence review).
- After Martinez and Trevino, Franklin moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), seeking to use the federal evidentiary-hearing record and Martinez/Trevino to overcome procedural bars and revisit his ineffective-assistance claim.
- The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion; the Sixth Circuit held that the motion was, in substance, a "second or successive" habeas application presenting the same claim with additional evidence, and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction absent prior appellate authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Franklin's Rule 60(b) motion is a true Rule 60(b) motion or a second/successive habeas petition | Franklin: motion merely attacks prior procedural ruling (default), invoking Martinez/Trevino to excuse default and permit merits review with federal evidence | Warden: motion advances the same ineffective-assistance claim with new evidence and thus is a second/successive petition barred without authorization | Held: The motion is a second or successive habeas application because it advances an already-litigated claim with new evidence; district court lacked jurisdiction without authorization |
| Whether Martinez/Trevino allow introduction of new federal-evidence to revive the claim | Franklin: Martinez/Trevino excuse his procedural default and permit merits review using federal evidentiary-hearing materials | Warden: Even if Martinez/Trevino apply, the claim's gravamen is unchanged and new evidence does not create a new claim; Pinholster limits use of new evidence | Held: Martinez/Trevino do not transform the filing into a proper Rule 60(b); new evidence does not create a new claim for § 2244(b) purposes |
| Whether the Sixth Circuit should authorize a successive petition | Franklin: asks appellate court to treat briefing as request for authorization to file successive petition | Warden: § 2244(b)(1) bars authorization because the claim was raised previously | Held: Denied authorization — claim was previously adjudicated and the new filings do not satisfy gatekeeping provisions |
| Whether the district court erred by reaching the merits without authorization | Franklin: district court could consider Rule 60(b) relief on equitable grounds | Warden: district court lacked jurisdiction over a successive petition without circuit authorization | Held: District court lacked jurisdiction; its order vacated for want of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (establishes limited equitable exception to Coleman for ineffective-assistance claims raised in initial-review collateral proceedings)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (extends Martinez to systems where direct review in practice makes presentation of ineffective-assistance claims virtually impossible)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (limits Rule 60(b) in habeas context; distinguishes true Rule 60(b) motions from successive habeas applications)
- District of Columbia v. Coleman (Coleman v. Thompson), 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default rule; ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel generally not cause to excuse default)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 181 (2011) (limits habeas review of new evidence to the state-court record in adjudications under AEDPA)
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain successive habeas petitions without appellate authorization)
- Franklin v. Bradshaw, 695 F.3d 439 (6th Cir. 2012) (prior Sixth Circuit decision affirming denial of Franklin's habeas petition based on state-court record)