Filed: Oct. 17, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: The scope of our review on this, appeal, however, is limited to whether to grant a COA on the district courts denial of, Hudsons request for reconsideration of the decision that his habeas petition was time-, barred.October 19, 2006, when he filed his first Rule 35(c) motion.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT October 17, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
EDWARD HUDSON,
Petitioner–Appellant,
v.
No. 13-1281
MICHAEL MILLER, Warden, Crowley (D.C. No. 1:12-CV-03305-LTB)
County Correctional Facility; THE (D. Colo.)
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents–Appellees.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Edward Hudson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
habeas petition and its denial of his motion to reconsider, which was correctly construed
as a Rule 60(b) motion. We lack jurisdiction over the former and deny a COA on the
latter, and thus dismiss the appeal.
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
I
In 2004, Hudson pled guilty in Colorado state court to second-degree murder,
first-degree arson, and one count of a crime of violence. On January 20, 2005, he was
sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling sixty-three years, plus five years
of mandatory parole. Hudson did not file a direct appeal, and thus his conviction became
final when the period to file an appeal ended on Monday, March 7, 2005. See Colo. App.
R. 4(b) (allowing forty-five days to file a notice of appeal, amended effective July 1,
2012, to allow forty-nine days for appeal); Colo. App. R. 26(a) (stating that if the last day
of a period of time allowed by the Rules falls on a weekend or holiday, the period will
run until the end of the next court business day).
On May 17, 2005, Hudson filed a motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant
to Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), which was denied on August 22, 2005.
Hudson had until October 6, 2005, to appeal that decision, but he did not. See Colo. App.
R. 4(b). On October 19, 2006, over a year later, Hudson filed a Rule 35(c) motion for
state post-conviction relief, which was ultimately denied on January 27, 2010. Hudson’s
appeal of that ruling was denied on June 23, 2011, and his petition for a writ of certiorari
to the Colorado Supreme Court was denied on October 24, 2011. In 2012 and 2013,
Hudson filed additional motions in state court that are irrelevant to the timeliness issue in
this appeal.
On December 19, 2012, Hudson filed a § 2254 petition in federal district court,
-2-
asserting that: (1) his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent; and (2) he had
received ineffective assistance of counsel.1 On May 1, 2013, the district court dismissed
the petition as barred by the one-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and
declined to grant a COA. On June 11, 2013, Hudson filed a document titled “Petition for
Panel Rehearing Pursuant to F.R.[App.]P. Rule 40 (a)(1), (2),” which the district court
construed as a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The district court denied the motion. Hudson filed a notice of appeal on July 3, 2013.
II
The only question properly before us is whether to grant a COA on the denial of
Hudson’s post-judgment motion, given that the motion was not timely filed so as to toll
the time to appeal the dismissal of his habeas petition. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). An
appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion raises for review only the district court’s
denial of that motion and not the underlying judgment. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does,
204 F.3d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir. 2000). We review the district court’s denial for an abuse
of discretion. Id. Hudson, moreover, may not appeal the district court’s decision unless
this court grants him a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A COA may issue “only if the
1
In his Combined Opening Brief and Application for COA in the instant appeal,
Hudson also states a separate claim that his due process rights were violated because he
was not given a competency evaluation and hearing. The scope of our review on this
appeal, however, is limited to whether to grant a COA on the district court’s denial of
Hudson’s request for reconsideration of the decision that his habeas petition was time-
barred.
-3-
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To satisfy this standard, the applicant must show “that reasonable
jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been
resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
(quotation omitted).
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) creates a
“1-year period of limitation” for habeas petitions by state prisoners, which, in Hudson’s
case, ran from “the expiration of the time for seeking [direct] review” of his convictions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The one-year period is tolled while “a properly filed
application for State post-conviction or other collateral review . . . is pending.” Id. The
district court held that Hudson’s petition for habeas relief was untimely under AEDPA’s
one-year limitations period. In ruling on Hudson’s request to reconsider this decision, the
district court concluded that there were no extraordinary circumstances that would cause
it to reconsider and vacate its order to dismiss the habeas petition as untimely. See
Massengale v. Okla. Bd. of Exam’rs in Optometry, 30 F.3d 1325, 1330 (10th Cir. 1994).
Hudson’s claim that the district court erred in construing his “Petition for Panel
Rehearing” as a Rule 60(b) motion is unavailing. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in following our precedent and treating the request as a motion for relief from
judgment under Rule 60(b), especially because Hudson did not file it within the
-4-
permissible period for a Rule 59(e) motion. See, e.g., Van Skiver v. United States, 952
F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). Hudson’s argument that he lacked familiarity with the
law does not change the outcome. See, e.g., Marsh v. Soares,
223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th
Cir. 2000).
Furthermore, regardless of whether the district court evaluated Hudson’s filing
under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), his habeas petition would be time-barred. Over a year
elapsed between October 6, 2005, the last day on which Hudson could have appealed his
motion for a reduction of his sentence (thus re-starting the limitations period), and
October 19, 2006, when he filed his first Rule 35(c) motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).2
Neither this Rule 35(c) motion nor his subsequent state-court filings could extend the
time for Hudson to file his habeas petition, because the one-year limitations period had
already expired. Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711, 714 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Only state
petitions for post-conviction relief filed within the one year allowed by AEDPA will toll
the statute of limitations.”). We further agree with the district court that equitable tolling
is inappropriate in this case.
Hudson additionally argues that because he met all the procedural requirements
2
We note that the original district court order contained minor inaccuracies
regarding dates in the procedural history of this case, but they are irrelevant to the result.
Hudson’s conviction became final on Monday, March 7, 2005, because the forty-five day
period for appeal would otherwise have ended over a weekend. See Colo. App. R. 4(b);
Colo. App. R. 26(a). This does not change the fact that over a year passed, during which
the limitations period was not being tolled, before Hudson filed his habeas petition.
-5-
for his filings in state court, comity requires that the federal courts hear his habeas
petition. State proceedings filed within the one-year limitations period will toll the bar,
but those filed after the one-year period, even if they comply with state procedural
requirements, do not extend the time to file a § 2254 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2);
Clark, 468 F.3d at 714. The fact that Hudson properly filed requests for post-conviction
relief after his habeas petition was time-barred does not render the district court’s
decision an abuse of discretion.
Finally, we are unconvinced by Hudson’s arguments that ineffective assistance of
counsel caused him to file his habeas petition in an untimely fashion. Hudson asserts that
his attorney failed to comply with his request to file a direct appeal, and abandoned him
after his 35(b) motion was denied without informing him that he could appeal that
decision. Hudson also received a letter from a second attorney erroneously informing
him that time still remained to seek habeas relief in October 2011. We note that
Hudson’s right to counsel expired when the time period for filing a direct appeal ran out
on March 7, 2005. Coronado v. Ward, 517 F.3d 1212, 1218 (10th Cir. 2008). Even
assuming that Hudson could otherwise pursue his ineffective assistance arguments, he
cannot show that they were prejudicial. See Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 692
(1984). The district court did not begin counting the limitations period until the time for
direct appeal had expired, and considered the period tolled from the time Hudson filed his
35(b) motion until the date to appeal denial of that motion expired. Even if Hudson’s
-6-
counsel erred in failing to file a direct appeal or failing to appeal the denial of his 35(b)
motion, Hudson was aware that the proceedings had ended. He thus had what was left of
the one-year period to file his habeas petition. The second attorney’s error took place
long after the limitations period had ended, so any delay caused by reliance on the letter
was immaterial.
III
Because Hudson’s habeas petition was time-barred, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion. We therefore DENY Hudson’s request
for a COA and DISMISS the appeal. Hudson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-7-
