Wells v. Miller

Background

Carl D. Wells filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his New York conviction. He raised claims of actual innocence, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. His direct appeal in New York was still pending.

On March 27, 2023, the court granted Superintendent Mark Miller’s motion to dismiss the petition because Wells had not exhausted his state-court remedies. The court determined that the petition was, at best, a mixed petition because Wells acknowledged that his actual-innocence claim had not been exhausted. The court declined to excuse exhaustion based on the delay in Wells’s direct appeal. Although some factors concerning the delay weighed in Wells’s favor, the court found that he had not shown prejudice and that principles requiring respect for state-court proceedings strongly favored allowing New York courts the first opportunity to address his constitutional claims. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice to a future petition after exhaustion or, if the delay continued, a claim seeking conditional relief based on unconstitutional appellate delay.

Rule 60(b) motion

Wells moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate the March 27 judgment. Although he cited Rule 60(b)(6), the court construed the motion under Rule 60(b)(1), which permits relief for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The court explained that Rule 60(b) relief is discretionary, generally disfavored, and requires exceptional circumstances. Because Wells was representing himself, the court construed his submissions liberally.

Wells argued that his appellate counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness justified excusing exhaustion; that his counsel lacked enough trial transcripts to perfect the appeal; that the court should have held an evidentiary hearing about the appeal record; that the court should have weighed the transcript delay more heavily against New York; and that his motions under New York Criminal Procedure Law §§ 440.10 and 440.20 had exhausted all of his claims. He also asked the court to decide the merits of his subject-matter-jurisdiction claim and requested appointed counsel.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Wells’s arguments. It stated that the March 27 opinion had already attributed the transcript delay to New York State, while finding that the reasons for the delay were fairly neutral overall. The court also reiterated that Wells’s state motions did not address his actual-innocence claim, so they did not exhaust all claims in the federal petition.

The court found that Wells had not shown that alleged ineffective assistance by appellate counsel would change the exhaustion analysis. The court had not attributed the delay to Wells’s appellate counsel, and the evidence before the court did not support a finding that counsel was ineffective.

The court also denied an evidentiary hearing because Wells had not submitted an affidavit or comparable evidence creating a dispute about a material fact. The available communications indicated that the missing voir dire transcript had been provided to appellate counsel and that the appeal was finally on track for review in the New York courts. Wells did not provide evidence contradicting those representations.

The court further held that Wells’s request for a decision on the state court’s subject-matter jurisdiction was not a proper Rule 60(b) argument. Instead of identifying an error in the March 27 decision, Wells was asking the court to reach the merits of a claim that the court had previously found it could not consider because the petition was unexhausted. The court also stated that a Rule 60(b) motion could not be used to raise a new due-process claim based on appellate delay.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to vacate the judgment. It also denied Wells’s request for an evidentiary hearing and his request to appoint the Office of Appellate Defender as counsel. The court stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because Wells had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the docket entry for the motion.