{"id":1756,"date":"2019-10-11T13:06:55","date_gmt":"2019-10-11T18:06:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1756"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:42:06","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:42:06","slug":"clark-v-oklahoma-10th-cir-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/10\/11\/clark-v-oklahoma-10th-cir-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Clark v. Oklahoma (10th Cir. 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">Clark v. Oklahoma, No. 19\u20137037 (10th Cir. 2019)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Petitioner was incarcerated and brought a habeas corpus petition in federal court to challenge a prior conviction for which he was no longer incarcerated, and for which registration was required. Petitioner argued, amongst other things, that registration satisfied the custody requirement of habeas corpus. Federal trial court denied the petition, and Petitioner sought a Certificate of Appealability.<\/p>\n<p><strong> Holding: <\/strong> 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the COA, finding that registration does not constitute custody for habeas corpus purposes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2019\/10\/10th-Circuit-Opinion.pdf\">10th Circuit Opinion<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>10th Circuit Court of Appeals denying COA on the argument that registration constitutes custody for habeas corpus purposes.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/10\/11\/clark-v-oklahoma-10th-cir-2019\/\" class=\"more-link\">Clark v. Oklahoma (10th Cir. 2019)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":836,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[112,43,216],"class_list":{"0":"post-1756","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-10th-cir","8":"tag-habeas-corpus","9":"tag-oklahoma","10":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1756","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/836"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1756"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1756\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}