Where an individual’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was denied, it was error to construe the motion as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion.
“Roy Christopher West is serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a conviction that the district judge who oversaw his prosecution has now attributed to a sentencing error. In the district court’s words, ‘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 of a sentence in violation of the law on West. Even skilled appellate counsel failed to raise the sentencing error.’
“West’s conviction and unlawful sentence stem from his 2010 indictment on a charge of conspiracy to use interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire. The district court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
“The district court sentenced West under the federal murder-for-hire statute, which imposes a sentence of life imprisonment in cases where ‘death results.’ 18 U.S.C. 1958(a). West’s indictment, however, ‘did not include any allegation that personal injury or death actually resulted from the conspiracy’ and ‘did not charge West with any substantive count requiring the jury to decide if murder occurred.’ ... The jury was not instructed that death was an element of West’s offense, was not asked to determine whether West’s offense resulted in death, and returned no special finding on the issue. ... ‘The government failed to properly charge West with the ‘death results’ enhancement under 1958; trial counsel failed to submit a verdict form for the jury to answer the death question; the Probation Department erroneously concluded that the conviction carried a mandatory life sentence; and’ the district judge ‘did not notice that the ‘death results’ enhancement was not submitted to the jury.’ ... Sentencing West to life imprisonment under these circumstanceswhen the conviction the jury actually returned ‘carried a statutory maximum penalty of ten years’violated West’s ‘constitutional rights as set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).’
“West’s Rule 60(b) motion in this case is trained 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. ... West essentially contends that, separate and apart from any claim of constitutionally deficient counsel, a sentencing judge’s acknowledgement in non-habeas post-conviction proceedings that a prisoner is serving an unconstitutionally imposed life sentence is both so unique and so extraordinary with such grave consequences for the prisoner himself and the judicial system more broadly that it supplies a freestanding basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). He also argues that the Government’s conduct in this case raises the specter of fraud on the court, an allegation capable of supplying a separate and independent basis for Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Whatever the district court, exercising its ‘wide discretion,’ concludes as to the merits of these claims, they are bona fide Rule 60(b) arguments, not habeas claims in disguise, and should be considered as such.
“For these reasons, the district court’s order construing West’s motion as a second or successive 2255 motion is VACATED and the motion is REMANDED to the district court to consider under Rule 60(b).”
In re: Roy Christopher West; MiLW 01-108043, 5 pages; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Stranch, J., joined by Bush, J., Mathis, J.; on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit; Craig A. Daly for appellant; Jessica V. Currie for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0