{"id":2550,"date":"2021-06-15T10:40:38","date_gmt":"2021-06-15T15:40:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2550"},"modified":"2021-06-30T10:49:48","modified_gmt":"2021-06-30T15:49:48","slug":"childers-v-crow-10th-cir-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2021\/06\/15\/childers-v-crow-10th-cir-2021\/","title":{"rendered":"Childers v. Crow (10th Cir. 2021)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Childers v. Crow, No. 20-5014\u00a0(10th Cir. 2021)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant had been required to register under Oklahoma state law, and was subsequently convicted of two offenses related to residency restrictions and received consecutive life sentences.<\/p>\n

Following a complicated procedural history, the Appellant filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging that his conviction represented an unconstitutional retroactive extension of Oklahoma’s SORA under the ex post facto clause.<\/p>\n

The district court denied the petition concluding that it was time-barred, but the court of appeals granted a certificate of appealability on the grounds that reasonable jurists could disagree on whether he advanced a claim of actual innocence sufficient to overcome the procedural time bar.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court, finding both that the habeas petition was time-barred and that the Appellant did not advance a claim of actual innocence either in the district court or on appeal sufficient to overcome federal procedural defects.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n