Carter v. State

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court affirms the denial of Douglas Stewart Carter’s Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion as untimely because it was based on newly discovered evidence and filed more than 90 days after judgment. The court reverses the dismissal of Carter’s third post-conviction petition, holding that the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction was not affected by the clerk’s assignment of the prior petition’s case number. The court remands with instructions to assign the third petition a new case number and to use its original filing date.

Holdings

1. A Rule 60(b) motion based on newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(2) must be filed no more than ninety days after judgment, and a party may not use Rule 60(b)(6)'s catchall provision to circumvent that deadline merely because the evidence was allegedly suppressed by the State.
2. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Carter's Third Petition regardless of the case number assigned by the clerk; filing the petition under the earlier petition's case number was a clerical error, not a jurisdictional defect.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Carter's Rule 60(b) motion based on newly discovered evidence was timely when filed more than two years after judgment and whether the Rule 60(b)(6) catchall could be used to avoid the ninety-day limit in Rule 60(b)(2).
2. Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Carter's Third Petition for post-conviction relief when the clerk filed it under the case number assigned to Carter's earlier petition.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded