United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
CHRISTOPHER W. WEBB, Petitioner,
JOE ALLBAUGH, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
H. PAYNE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied on April 15,
2016 (Dkt. 18), and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
dismissed his untimely notice of appeal on September 7, 2016
(Dkt. 29). He subsequently filed a motion pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), complaining of “the
defects/shortcomings in the integrity of the Federal Habeas
Proceedings that have further prevented/precluded (a) (Final
determination on the merits of petitioner's claims) which
have led to multiple erroneous procedural rulings.”
(Dkt. 30 at 1). Petitioner is arguing that this Court has
failed to properly consider his claim of the sufficiency of
the evidence to convict him of Conspiracy to Commit a Felony.
Civ. P. Rule 60(b) allows relief from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
60(b) relief ‘is extraordinary and may only be granted
in exceptional circumstances.'” Zurich North
America v. Matrix Service, Inc., 426 F.3d 1281, 1289
(10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Servants of Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 2000)).
Furthermore, “[i]n a Rule 60(b) proceeding the motion
is addressed to the sound discretion of the [district]
court.” Caribou Four Corners v. Truck Ins.
Exchange, 443 F.2d 796, 799 (10th Cir. 1971) (citations
alleges this Court failed to address whether all the elements
necessary to constitute the crime of Conspiracy to Pass Two
or More Bogus Checks were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In particular, he argues the sixth and seventh elements of
the underlying crime of Passing Two or More Bogus Checks in
Excess of $500 were not considered. (Dkt. 30 at
record shows Petitioner raised a claim of insufficient
evidence in his habeas petition. His argument was that the
accomplice testimony was insufficient and uncorroborated, and
that even if the evidence had been corroborated, it was
insufficient to establish a conspiracy to commit a felony.
(Dkt. 1 at 8-9). The petition, however, failed to expressly
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the
underlying crime of Passing Two or More Bogus Checks in
Excess of $500. Instead, he raised this issue in his
“Motion to Add the Supplemental Information Re: Ground
2 Insufficient Evidence, ” alleging he lacked the
requisite knowledge that there were insufficient funds when
the bogus checks were written. (Dkt. 1 at 35-36). The Court
did not address this specific claim concerning the elements
of Petitioner's underlying crime.
review of the record shows that Petitioner failed to raise
this particular issue on direct appeal. (Dkt. 14-2 at 16-19).
Instead, as in his habeas ...