Errol Moses v. Carlton Joyner
815 F.3d 163
4th Cir.2016Background
- Errol Moses was convicted in North Carolina of two first-degree murders and sentenced to death; state and initial federal habeas challenges were denied.
- Moses filed multiple state post-conviction motions (MARs) and a federal habeas petition; the federal district court dismissed his habeas petition as procedurally barred and this Court affirmed in 2007.
- The Supreme Court decided Martinez v. Ryan (2012) and Trevino v. Thaler (2013), creating a narrow exception allowing federal review of certain ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel (IATC) claims when post-conviction counsel was ineffective.
- Moses filed a Rule 60(b) motion in 2014 seeking to reopen the 2005 federal habeas judgment based on Martinez/Trevino, arguing those decisions excused his procedural default of IATC claims.
- The district court denied relief as untimely under Rule 60(c) and as failing to show the “extraordinary circumstances” required for Rule 60(b)(6) in the habeas context; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c) | Moses: Motion timely; operative date should be later (e.g., Fowler) | State: Timeliness measured from Martinez/Trevino; Moses’ 2014 filing was unreasonably delayed | Held: Untimely — reasonable start is Martinez; 2.5-year delay (15 months after Trevino) was not within a "reasonable time" |
| Whether Martinez/Trevino are "extraordinary circumstances" under Rule 60(b)(6) | Moses: Change in law is extraordinary and justifies reopening final judgment | State: Change in decisional law alone is insufficient; Gonzalez restricts 60(b)(6) in habeas cases | Held: Not extraordinary — change in habeas law alone insufficient for 60(b)(6); Gonzalez and circuit precedent foreclose relief |
| Sufficiency of underlying IATC claim under Martinez ("substantial" requirement) | Moses: His IATC claim falls within Martinez exception and is colorable | State: Argued IATC claim fails on the merits and Martinez’s substantiality requirement not met | Held: Court declined to reach merits; Moses failed at earlier procedural thresholds (timeliness and extraordinary-circumstances) |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (created exception to procedural default when initial-review collateral counsel was ineffective)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) (extended Martinez to certain states where direct review opportunities are limited)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief in habeas context requires extraordinary circumstances; change in decisional law alone usually insufficient)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (principle of finality in criminal judgments and retroactivity limits)
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (extraordinary circumstances standard for reopening judgments)
- Hall v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary, 364 F.2d 495 (4th Cir. 1966) (change in Supreme Court precedent is not alone a basis to reopen final judgments)