## Facts

- William John Clark was convicted of first degree murder with a special circumstance (murder in the commission of arson), two counts of attempted murder, arson, and rape, and was sentenced to death.
- The California Supreme Court previously affirmed the conviction and death sentence on direct review.
- Clark later filed a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court raising claims that could have been presented earlier and/or were presented after substantial delay.
- The habeas record did not call into question that Clark committed the acts leading to his convictions.
- The petition required the court to decide whether to reach the merits or deny relief based on procedural limits applicable to delayed and repetitive state habeas litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether unjustified delay in presenting habeas claims bars merits review in state habeas corpus proceedings.
2. Whether claims that were, or could have been, raised earlier are barred as successive or an abuse of the writ.
3. Whether any “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception required merits consideration despite delay and successiveness.

## Decision

- The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
- Unjustified delay in presenting claims barred consideration of the petition’s merits.
- The petition was also barred to the extent it was successive or constituted an abuse of the writ.
- No recognized “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception applied because the petition’s allegations and exhibits did not meet the required showings.

## Legal Principles

- State habeas corpus is an extraordinary collateral remedy and is not a substitute for appeal; claims must be presented with reasonable diligence.
- A petition may be denied for “unjustified delay” when claims could have been discovered and raised earlier and the petitioner fails to provide a specific, adequate explanation for the delay.
- Successive habeas principles bar (a) relitigation of claims previously raised and rejected on the merits and (b) claims that could have been raised earlier but were not, absent an adequate justification.
- A narrow “fundamental miscarriage of justice” gateway permits review despite procedural bars only in extraordinary circumstances, including:
  - a constitutional error rendering the trial so fundamentally unfair that no reasonable factfinder would have convicted absent the error;
  - actual innocence of the crime(s) of conviction;
  - imposition of death based on a grossly misleading profile such that no reasonable sentencer would have imposed death absent the error or omission; or
  - conviction under an invalid statute.
- The petitioner bears the burden to plead and support facts showing entitlement to an exception; conclusory allegations are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court refused to reach the merits of a delayed, successive capital habeas petition, holding that unjustified delay and abuse-of-the-writ principles bar relief unless the petitioner makes a strong showing that continued enforcement of the conviction or sentence would constitute a narrowly defined fundamental miscarriage of justice.


In re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750 (Cal. 1993)