Clark v. Chappell

Background

The court had granted Richard Dean Clark partial relief in an earlier order dated July 14, 2022. That order required Oak Smith, identified in the caption as the Acting Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin, either to vacate Clark’s death sentence and resentence him under the United States Constitution and California law or to begin proceedings to retry the punishment phase within 120 days.

The court had previously approved two extensions, setting March 31, 2023, as the deadline. Oak Smith then requested another extension until June 1, 2023. The parties agreed that the State initially needed additional time to comply and that Clark later needed additional time to challenge a special-circumstance finding.

At a March 14, 2023 state-court hearing, the superior court denied Clark’s motion to strike the special circumstance and stated that it would impose life without the possibility of parole for the murder charge covered by the federal court’s order. The state court did not yet impose a sentence or restitution fines for Clark’s rape conviction because it needed a new probation report. A further state-court hearing was scheduled for May 9, 2023.

Clark’s Opposition

Clark argued that Oak Smith had not properly sought extra time because the request was not made through a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment in limited circumstances, including fraud, mistake, or newly discovered evidence. Clark relied on a prior Ninth Circuit decision holding that such a motion was required when the deadline in a conditional habeas order had passed.

Clark also argued that the State had not satisfied the conditions of the original order. He asked the court to direct the State to resentence him within 60 days to life without parole for first-degree murder, impose any lesser sentence available under state law, or release him.

Court’s Analysis

The court distinguished the prior Ninth Circuit decision. In that earlier proceeding, the State had failed to begin the required proceedings by the deadline and had not shown a qualifying reason under Rule 60(b) to modify the order.

Here, the court found that the State had essentially complied with the order after receiving two agreed extensions. The State had vacated Clark’s death sentence and begun proceedings to resentence him. The fact that sentencing was not complete because the state court needed a probation report concerning other convictions did not change that conclusion. The court stated that the State had begun resentencing in compliance with federal and California law.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted Oak Smith’s motion for an extension of time. The court extended until June 1, 2023, the deadline for completing Clark’s resentencing ordered on July 14, 2022. This order addressed the timing of compliance with the earlier relief order rather than deciding the underlying validity of Clark’s convictions or sentence.