Foley v. Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880

Foley challenged two 1993 murder convictions with death sentences via post-conviction relief petition CR 60.02 and RCr 10.02 defenses.
Trial involved conflicting accounts: Commonwealth alleged Foley killed two Vaughn brothers and aided cover-up; Foley claimed self-defense and that Lynn Vaughn shot Rodney first.
Nixon, a firearms expert, issued a report arguing the evidence could support Foley’s version and undermine the Commonwealth’s theory.
Trial court denied relief summarily; Foley pursued multiple CR 60.02 motions over many years, including prior appeals and a federal habeas action.
Court addressed procedural default, equitable tolling, and merits under CR 60.02(b)/(f), CR 60.03, and RCr 10.02, ultimately denying relief.
Court held that Nixon’s findings were not “newly discovered evidence” and did not meet the strict standards for relief; the motion was an impermissible successive CR 60.02 motion; no tolling applied to warrant relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CR 60.02 claim based on Nixon’s report was timely.	Foley argues timely due to equitable tolling.	Commonwealth contends delay not excused; motion is successive.	No; not timely; not saved by tolling.
Whether Nixon’s report constitutes ‘newly discovered evidence’ under CR 60.02(b).	Nixon’s findings support Foley’s self-defense theory.	Report is not newly discovered; could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.	Not newly discovered; fails to meet standard.
Whether the motion under CR 60.02(f) shows extraordinary circumstances justifying relief.	Nixon’s report is extraordinary and merits relief.	Evidence is speculative; lacks decisive value to change verdict.	No extraordinary circumstances; no relief under 60.02(f).
Whether relief under CR 60.03 independent action is warranted after denial under 60.02.	Relief should be available via independent action.	If 60.02 denied, 60.03 relief is unavailable.	Not entitled to relief under CR 60.03.
Whether RCr 10.02 should grant a new trial given the purported newly discovered evidence.	New evidence would have likely changed the verdict.	Not of decisive value; not likely to change result.	No; failed to show decisive impact; no new trial.

Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. 1983) (CR 60.02 time limits and relief limitations; coram nobis analogue)
McQueen v. Commonwealth, 948 S.W.2d 415 (Ky. 1997) (CR 60.02 not for endless relitigation; extraordinary circumstances required)
Jennings v. Commonwealth, 380 S.W.2d 284 (Ky. 1964) (new evidence must be decisive to change verdict; standards for relief)
Harris v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 637 (Ky. 2008) (definition of newly discovered evidence; reasonable diligence required)
Sanders v. Commonwealth, 339 S.W.3d 427 (Ky. 2011) (equates CR 60.02 with timing and discovery rules)
Roach v. Commonwealth, 384 S.W.3d 131 (Ky. 2012) (equitable tolling standard under Holland v. Florida applied)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (1995) (federal tolling framework cited for equitable tolling)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equal tolling standard for timely filings)
Epperson v. Commonwealth, 809 S.W.2d 835 (Ky. 1990) (new trials and discretion warranted by factual fault)
Jones v. Commonwealth, 108 S.W.2d 816 (Ky. 1937) (coram nobis lineage; later overruled in part)
Woodard v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 63 (Ky. 2004) (cover-up as circumstantial evidence of guilt)