Background
Antonio Prophet is serving consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for two first-degree murder convictions and twenty years for first-degree arson. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. Prophet later sought habeas relief, but the circuit court summarily dismissed twenty-two claims and rejected his remaining ineffective-assistance claims without an evidentiary hearing. The state high court affirmed that ruling.
In May 2024, nine years after the denial of his first habeas petition, Prophet moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) and requested a full evidentiary hearing. He alleged “fraud on the court,” asserting that his former attorneys, the prosecutor, the circuit court, and court personnel had conspired to violate his constitutional rights. The circuit court found the motion untimely, concluded that the earlier judgment was neither void nor vacated, and determined that Prophet’s materials did not establish fraud. It denied both motions.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief. Prophet filed his motion nine years after the challenged judgment. That was beyond Rule 60(b)’s one-year limit for ground (6) and, under the circumstances, was not a reasonable time for his claims under grounds (4) and (5), particularly because Prophet acknowledged that the alleged problems had been apparent from the record throughout the proceedings. He also failed to show that the judgment was void or had been vacated.
Although a claim of fraud upon the court is not subject to a filing deadline, the court agreed that Prophet had not established fraud. His documents and arguments did not support his allegations of a conspiracy and instead amounted to unsupported assertions. The circuit court also acted within its discretion by declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing because it considered the evidence identified in Prophet’s motion and found no factual showing of fraud requiring a hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A court reviewing a Rule 60(b) motion must first determine whether the requested relief was timely sought.
- Relabeling allegations as “fraud upon the court” does not excuse a movant from presenting evidence that actually supports fraud.
- An evidentiary hearing is not required when the submitted materials fail to establish a factual dispute supporting relief from judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the narrow scope of appellate review following denial of a Rule 60(b) motion: the reviewing court examines the denial itself, not the merits of the underlying final judgment. It also shows that even fraud-on-the-court allegations, which are not time-barred, must rest on evidence rather than conclusory accusations.