CRIMINAL LAW
Andrew Webb
In Powell v. State, the court of appeals held that, in light of new case law, a Rule 60(b) motion may be filed to challenge erroneous procedural rulings in post-conviction relief proceedings, but final judgments are not entitled to relief based on prospective application of new case law. Following a jury trial in 2000, Powell received a twenty-six-year sentence for assault, reckless endangerment, and driving while intoxicated. Powell appealed his sentence, but not his conviction, which the court of appeals affirmed as reasonable. In 2004, two months after his sentence appeal was final, Powell applied for post-conviction relief, which the superior court dismissed as untimely under AS 12.72.020(a)(3)(A). Eighteen months after new case law expanded the understanding of AS 12.72.020(a)(3)(A) to include a one year period for filing post-conviction relief following a sentence appeal, Powell accordingly filed a motion under Rule 60(b)in his original post-conviction relief case. The court agreed that recent case law justified a Rule 60(b) motion to correct the erroneous procedural ruling which barred Powell’s claim as untimely. However, the court did not agree that new case law should be prospectively applied under 60(b)(5)to grant Powell relief on the merits. The court also dismissed Powell’s claims that the original judgment was void under 60(b)(4) and his argument that equities favored relief under 60(b)(6). The court of appeals affirmed, holding that while a 60(b) motion may be filed in post-conviction relief proceedings to correct erroneous procedural rulings, Powell was not entitled to relief of his final judgment on the merits.
