345 P.3d 737
Utah2015Background
- Carter convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1985; Tovar witnesses testified about statements and state payments disclosed on cross-exam but not on redirect; direct appeal affirmed conviction but vacated sentence (Carter I) and death sentence later reinstated after new sentencing (Carter II); Carter pursued multiple PCRA petitions, with First Petition denied (2001) and Second Petition denied (2009, affirmed on appeal in 2012); in 2011, affidavits from the Tovars and retired officers surfaced alleging state support for the family during trial; Carter filed a Rule 60(b) motion on August 5, 2011 based on newly discovered evidence; he then filed a Third Petition on March 27, 2012, miscaptioned and filed under the Second Petition’s case number due to clerical confusion; the district court dismissed the Third Petition for lack of jurisdiction and denied nunc pro tunc relief in a later proceeding; this Court affirms the Rule 60(b) denial as untimely but reverses the jurisdictional dismissal and remands to assign a new case number for the Third Petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 60(b) motion was timely. | Carter argues newly discovered evidence justifies relief and falls under 60(b)(2) or 60(b)(6). | The district court found the motion untimely under 60(b)(2)’s 90-day limit and disallowed 60(b)(6) as a catchall. | Untimely under 60(b)(2); 60(b)(6) not applicable. |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction over the Third Petition despite clerical mislabeling. | Third Petition was a new petition, not an amendment, and should have been heard. | Clerical assignment under Second Petition created jurisdictional doubt. | District court had jurisdiction; remand to assign a new case number for the Third Petition. |
| Whether the clerical mislabeling affected the court’s authority to decide the Third Petition. | Case number mislabeling did not affect the petition’s substance and jurisdiction. | Clerical error could deprive jurisdiction. | Clerical error did not deprive jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kell v. State, 2012 UT 25 (Utah 2012) (60(b) timing; PCRA context; cannot use 60(b)(6) to circumvent limits)
- Laub v. S. Cent. Utah Tel. Ass’n, 657 P.2d 1304 (Utah 1982) (residuary clause cannot bypass time-bar limitations)
- J.M.W. v. T.I.Z. (In re Adoption of Baby E.Z.), 2011 UT 38 (Utah 2011) (jurisdiction depends on authority to decide, not case number assigned)
- Beaver Cnty. v. Qwest, Inc., 2001 UT 81 (Utah 2001) (jurisdictional question about petition hearing authority)
- Navajo Nation v. State (In re Adoption of L.O.), 2012 UT 23 (Utah 2012) (mootness standard; when an appeal becomes moot)