Durham v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Durham’s third postconviction motion because his conclusory allegations did not plead particularized new evidence creating a strong inference of actual innocence. The Court also held that the version of Rule 61 in effect when Durham filed his motion governed, so he could not rely on the pre-2014 miscarriage-of-justice exception. The Court therefore upheld both the denial of postconviction relief and the denial of the motion to stay.