Clark v. Cline
670 F. App'x 994
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Sidney Clark was convicted in Kansas state court (1984) of rape and aggravated burglary; Kansas Supreme Court affirmed his convictions in 1985.
- Clark filed state postconviction motions in 1997–1998; those motions were denied and he sought no further relief until 2013.
- Clark filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in August 2015, asserting new DNA testing showed he was innocent and also challenging certain trial conduct (e.g., use of a prior Texas rape conviction).
- The district court dismissed the habeas petition as time-barred under AEDPA and denied a certificate of appealability (COA).
- The only DNA evidence presented was a 2010 DNA Diagnostics Center report: no male DNA from two samples, and a partial profile from a third that was consistent with Clark (probability ~1 in 1,070,000 for an unrelated match).
- The district court held the DNA evidence did not meet the Schlup actual-innocence gateway; Clark appealed, seeking a COA from the Tenth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under AEDPA | Clark argued his petition should be considered despite delay because new DNA proof shows actual innocence. | Government argued petition was untimely (AEDPA one-year limit) and state tolling did not extend to 2015. | Court held petition was time-barred; tolling did not save 2015 filing. |
| Actual-innocence gateway (Schlup) | Clark argued the 2010 DNA report is new, reliable evidence establishing actual innocence to overcome procedural bar. | Government argued the DNA evidence was insufficient to show it is more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict. | Court held the DNA evidence did not meet Schlup’s high standard; it failed to establish actual innocence. |
| Certificate of Appealability standard (Slack) | Clark contended reasonable jurists could debate both the merits and procedural dismissal. | Government contended dismissal on procedural grounds was correct and not debatable. | Court denied COA, finding no debatable issue on merit or procedural ruling. |
| Sufficiency of DNA evidence | Clark relied on partial profile matching him and statistical rarity to prove exculpatory value. | Government noted partial profile and positive match do not exonerate and do not undermine confidence in conviction. | Court concluded the partial-match result did not clear the Schlup threshold. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (COA standards when habeas petition dismissed on procedural grounds)
- Hoggro v. Boone, 150 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 1998) (AEDPA timing rules for convictions final before AEDPA’s effective date)
- Lopez v. Trani, 628 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2010) (actual-innocence exception can overcome procedural bars)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (standard for gateway actual-innocence claims to excuse procedural defaults)