H on. Theres a L. Springm ann, D is tr ic t Jud ge f or the N orther n  Dis t ri c tofI ndi ana , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08
- 1401 J OS EP H P R I CE , P et it ioner-App el lant, v. G UY P I ER CE , R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 07 C50111

—Fr ederic k J . Kap ala, Judge .
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 22, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 13, 2010

Befo re K ANNE a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges , a nd S PR I NGMA NN, D istrict Judge.  K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . W hi l e inca rce ra ted f oro ther cr im e s , Joseph Price w as con victed i n Il linois state cou rt o fthr ee c o unt s o fa g g r av at ed se xua la ss au l t f o r b ea ting an d r apinga fel l o w i nm at e. F o r the se c o nv i ct i o ns he2 N o. 08
- 1401

w as sente nced to thre e con se c uti ve 35- yea r ter m s o f im p risonm en t. A fter boun cing arou nd the Il lino is cou rt sys tem f orte n ye ar s on num er ous a pp eal s a nd m oti ons, Pri ce fi nal l y a rr i ved i n the federa lco urts byfi l i ng a peti ti on f ora w ri t o fhabea s cor pu s under 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254. Th e d i s t r i c tc o ur tdi s mi s s e d h i s p e t i t i o n a s t i me b a r r e d, rej ec tin g P ric e’s arg u m en t t h at a m ot ion u n d er Il lin ois S t a t u t e 7 2 5 I L C S 5 / 1 1 6

- 3 wa s a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k o n t he j ud gm en t aga i nst hi m thatto l l ed the one- yea r sta tute of l i mi t a t i o n s f o r fi l i n ga h ab e a s p e t i t i o n . We n o w a ffi r m.

I. B ACK GR OUN D I n N ove m ber19 95, wh i l e inc ar c er ate d at Di xon Corr ecti onalCenteri n Illinoi s, Pri ce was char ged with fi ve co unt s o fa g g r av ate d s ex ua la ss au l t o ft wo fel l o w i nm at es . In Apr i l1 99 6, a j ur y fou nd hi m g ui l tyo n the thre e co unts r el ate d to one ofthe i nm ate s, but not gui l ty o n the o th ertwo c o unt s r elated to the o th eri nm at e. The tr i alco urt sente nced Pri ce t o thre e co nsecu tive 35
- yea r te r m s o fi m pr i so nm en t. Pr i ce fi l ed a m o ti o n t o r ec o nsi dera nd f o r a ne w trial in Oc tobe r 1 99 6. M o r e th ano ne yea r l ate r, the tr i alco urt denie d his m oti ons. A l m ost tw o yea rs afterthat, i n Octobe r 1999 , the A pp ellat e Court ofI l l i nois affi rm ed hi s co nvi cti ons and sentence
. Pri ce then fi l ed a pet i tion forl eave to fi l e a n appeal with the S up r e me Co ur to fI l l i no i s , wh i c h tha tc o ur tde ni ed on F ebr uary2, 2 000. Pri ce’ s window f orfi l i ng a peti ti on f ora w ri t o fcer ti or ar icl ose d 90 days l ate r i n M ay 2000
. The one- yea r sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons f orfi lin g a peti ti on for a w ri t of habeas cor pu s expir ed one yea r lat er in M ay 2001

— un l e s s P r i c e i s c o r r e c ttha ti twa s t o l l e d.N o. 08
- 1401 3 M oving ba ck i n ti m e, wh ile P ri ce’ s peti ti on f orl eave to fi le an ap p eal w as p en d ing w ith th e Sup rem e C ou rt ofI l l i noi s, i n N ove m ber19 99 h e fi l ed a m oti on f or forensic testing un d er 725 ILC S 5 /1 16-3 (“D N A M otion”). O n e y e a r l a t e r, th e s t a t e t r i a lc o u r td i s mi s s e d th e D NA M ot ion a s u n tim ely . Th e A p p ella te C ou rtof Illin ois d isa gr ee d , an d it rev er se d an d rem an d ed th e c as e in 20 03 wi thins truct i o ns t o the t r i alc o ur t to de te r m i ne th e p ro p rie ty ofa l l o w in g t h re e d iffer en t D N A te st s. In J an ua r y 2 00 5, the t r i alc o ur t i ss ue d a n o r derde ny i ngthe re m anded DN A M oti on on the m er i ts. A l m ostei ghtee n m onths l ate r, the A pp el l ate Courto fI l li noi s a ffi rm ed th e t r i a lc o u r t, a n d o n S e p t e mb e r 2 7, 20 0 6 , th e S u p r e me C ou rtof Illin ois d en ied P ric e’ s p et itio n for lea ve to file an appeal
. In M ay 2007

— si x y ea r s afte r the j ud g m en t aga i nst Pr i ce b ecam e fi nal, but j ust e igh t m onths after hi s DN A M oti on was fi nal l y s ett l ed

— P ric e fi led h is pro se federa lhabea s peti ti on, wh i ch the fed er al di str i ct cou rt de nied a s u nt im ely. T he district cou rt did , how ever, gr ant a cer ti fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty on the questi on o f “w hetherthe one- yea r l i m i tat i ons peri od i m posed by 28 U
. S. C. § 2 244( d)( 1) ( A ) was to l l ed und er§ 2244 ( d)( 2) d u ring the peri od ofti m e in w hi ch peti ti oner ’ s m oti on f o r f o r e n s i c t e s t i n gw a s p e nd i n gi n s t a t e c o u r t . ” We no w addr es s th atque st i o n.
II. A NA LYSIS We r e v i e w deno vo the di str i ct c ourt ’ s d ism issa lo f P ric e’s h ab ea s p et itio n as u n tim ely
. S i mms v . A c e ve do , 5 95 F. 3d 774, 77 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. In gene ra l, a pri sone r m ay4 N o. 08
- 1401 p e t i t i o n f o r a wr i to fh ab e a s c o r p u s o n l y a ft e r e x h a us ti ng al lpo ss ibl e st ate remedi es . 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4(b) ( 1) ( A). The peti ti on m ust b e fi l ed w i thi n one yea r after“the date o n whi chthe [ st at e] j udg m en t be cam e fi na lb y the c o nc l us i o n o fd i r e c tr e v i e w o r th e e x p i r a t i o n o fth e t i me for s e e k ing su ch review
. . . . ” 28 U
. S. C
. § 2244(d )( 1)(A ). T h e o n e - y e a r s t a t u t e o fl i mi t a t i o ns can b e t o l l e d , h o weve r, i fthe peti ti onerapplies fo r “St ate post
- convi cti on or ot h e r c olla te ra l rev iew ” o f th e jud gm en t. Id. ( d )( 2). Pri ce a rgues that hi s m oti on under I lli noi s S tatute 725 IL C S 5 /1 16 -3 q u alifie s a s “ ot h er co llat er al re vie w .” I n U nite d State s v . A d donizio th e Su p re m e C ou rtid en tifi ed th r ee k i nd s o f ac ti o ns o r c l ai m s th atfel lwi th i n “ th e est abl ished st andards o fco l l ate ra lat tack ”: a cl ai m that a pro ceedi ng vi ol ate d defendant’ s co nsti tuti onal ri ghts, that the i m posed se ntence fel lo utsi de sta tutory l i m i ts, o r that “the proce edi ng was . . . i nfe cted with [ an] er ro r of f ac t o r l aw o fthe ‘ funda m en ta l ’ c ha r ac te r tha t r en der s th e enti re pro ceedi ng i rr egul ar and inval i d.” 442 U
. S. 17 8, 18 6 (1979) . P rice urges u s to find that a m otion un d er § 116-3 fal ls und er th e l a t ter categ ory

— that i s, thata m oti on und er§ 116- 3 ra ises the questi on o fa defe nd ant’ s a ctual inn ocen ce, w hich i s an error of “fun d am en tal” cha racter. W e hav e pre viously d is c us sed the ch aract eristi cs of a col l ate ra lr evi ew o fa j ud gm ent, as di stinct fro m a dir ect re vie w . W e e x p lain e d t h a t “ [p ]os t-c on vic tio n ap p ea ls . .
. provi de an i nd ependent and ci vi l i nquir y i nto the v al i dity of a co n vic tio n an d se n te n c e, an d as su c h are ge n er ally l i m i te d t o chal l enges to co nsti tuti onal, j uri sdic ti onal, o r ot her fund am entalvi ol ati ons that occur re d at t ri al .”N o. 08
- 1401 5 G rah a m v. B o rgen , 483 F.3d 475, 479 (7th Cir. 2007). The federa lhabea s co rpus st atute i s the “a rche ty p ical col l ate ra lr evi ew . ” Id. a t 479-80. I n ass essing w he th er a parti cul arst ate pro cedure const i tutes co l l ate ra lr evi ew of the j ud gm en t, “w e look to how a state p roced ure functi ons, r atherthan the par ti cul arnam e that i t be ar s. ” Id. at 479. Se cti on 1 16- 3, ti tl ed “M oti on f or fi nger pri nt, Integr ate d Ball i sti c I denti fi cati on S yst em , o r f or ensi c te sting not avai l abl e a t t ri alreg ar ding actuali nnocence, ” pro vi des i n re l evantpart : ( a) A defen dan t m aymake a m otion be f o r e th e tr i alco urt that enter ed the j ud gm ent o fco nvi cti on in hi s o r her case f orthe perf orm an c e of fi nger pri nt , Integr ate d Ball i sti c I denti fi cati on S y s t e m, o r f o r e n s i c D NA t e s t i n g, in c l u d i n gc o mpari son anal ysi s o fge neti c m ar kergr oupin gs o f the e vi dence col l ecte d b y cri m i nalj usti ce a genci es pur s u a n tt o th e a l l e g e d o ffe n s e , t o th o s e o fthe defe n d an t, to tho se ofo therf or ensi c ev i dence, and to thos e m ai ntai ned und ersubse cti on ( f ) o f Se cti on 5
- 4- 3 o fthe U ni fi ed C od e o fCor re cti ons, o n e vi den ce tha t was s ec ur ed i n r el at i o n t o the t r i a lwh i c h r e s ul t e d in hi s o r h e r c o nv i c t i o n, a nd : ( 1) w as not subj ect to the tes ti ng wh i ch is now requ ested at the tim e of trial ; or ( 2) al th ough pre vi ousl y s ubj ecte d to tes ti ng, can be s ubj ecte d to add i ti onal tes ti ng uti l i zi ng a m etho d tha t was not6 N o. 08
- 1401 sci enti fi c allyava i l abl e a t the ti m e o ftr i al that provi des a re aso nabl e l i kel i hood o f m or e pr obat i ve re sul ts. Reas on abl e no ti ce o fthe m oti on s hal lbe serve d upon th e St at e. ( b) The defe nd ant m ust pre sent a pri m a f aci e ca se that: ( 1) i denti ty w as the i ssue i n the tr i alwh i ch r e s ul t e d in hi s o r h e rc o nv i c t i o n; a nd ( 2) the e vi den ce t o be t est ed has b een su bj e c t t o a c ha i n o f c us t o dy s uffi c i e ntto e s t ab l i s h th a ti th a s n o tb e e n s u b s t i t u t e d, ta m p er ed w ith , rep lac ed , o r alt er ed in an y m at er ial a sp ec t. ( c) The tr i alco urt shal lal l ow the te sting under r ea so nabl e co ndi ti o ns de si g ne d t o pr o te ctthe St ate ’ s inter est s in the i ntegr i ty ofthe evi dence and the t est i ng p ro cess u pon a dete rm i nati on that: ( 1) th e r es ul t o f th e te st i ng ha s th e sci en ti fi c po te nt i alto pr o duce ne w, no nc um ul ati ve evi dence m ateri al l y r el evantto the defendant’s as ser ti on o factual i nnocence eve n though the r esul ts m ay not c om p let ely ex on er at e t h e d efe n d an t; ( 2) th e te st i ngr eque st ed empl o y s a sc i en tific m et h od ge n er ally ac c ep t ed w ith in th e re lev an t s c ien tific co m m u n ity
. Pri ce ur ges us t o fi nd thata m oti on under thi s s tatute i s a co l l ate ra l at tacko n hi s co nvi cti on be cause the t ri alN o. 08
- 1401 7
cou rt, i n d ecid ing the DN A M otion, w il l ha ve to d eterm ine tha t i den ti tywas a t i ss ue i n h i s tr i ala nd tha t th e evi dence gl eaned fro m the DN A te st i s “ m ate ri al l y r el eva n t” to h is c laim of in n oc en c e. (A p p el l e e ’ s B r. at12 -13 .) T h os e d et er m in at ion s, so goe s t h e a rg u m en t, n ec es s a r ily re quir e the co urt to deter m i ne thatther e was a fund am entaler ro r off act

— that i s, the d efe n dant’s i nnocence

— and ther ef or e a m oti on under § 11 6- 3 shoul d be consi dered a col l ate ra lr evi ew o fthe j ud gm ent. This i s the fi rs t occa si on w e have had to c on si der whe the r a mo t i o n s e e k i ngDNA t e s t i ngu nd e r 7 2 5 I LCS 5 / 1 1 6

- 3 i s a “ c o l l a t e r a l r e v i e w ” o f a j u d g m e n t . We natura l l y turn fi rs t t o I l l i noi s s tat e co urts to se e whet h er I l lin ois co nstr ues a m oti on under § 11 6- 3 a s a co l l ate ra l a tt ac k. Cf. Gr aham , 48 3 F
. 3d at 478 ( “The W i scon sin cour ts’ ow n inte rpre tat i on o fthe sta tute i s ce rt ai nl y a go od p lac e t o b eg into d et er m in e w h e t h e r t h e re vie w is di r ec t o r c o l l at er al
. ”)
. Pr i ce a r g ue s th ati n Peop l ev. LaP ointe, the Suprem e Cour t o fI l l i noi s determ i ned that a m oti on under § 11 6- 3 i s a co l l ate ra lat tack. 87 9 N
. E.2 d 275 ( I l l
. 2 00 7)
. The c o ur t i n LaP ointe, whi l e detaili ngthe m any l ega lact i ons the defendant h ad file d, sai d that th e d efe n d an t “ b eg a n f i lin g a se rie s o f co llat er al c h all enges to th e c onvi cti on. ” Id. a t 27 6. I t wento n t o l i sta nd describe the pro ceduralhi sto rybehin d a num bero f c h alle n ge s, in c lu d in g a f e d er al h ab ea s c or p u s p et itio n, a post- convi cti on peti ti on in sta te cour t, and a c l ai m o f ac t u a l inn oc en c e. Id. A t the ta i lend ofthi s l engthypro ceduralhi story, the cour t no ted thatthe defe nd ant a l so fi l ed a m ot ion un der § 11 6- 3, ar gui ng tha t a DN A te st w ou ld p ro ve h is in n oc en c e. Id.8 N o. 08
- 1401 A t fi rst blush , Price’s i nt e rp retation of La P o inte a ppea rs to be cor re ct. But w e a re hesi tant to re ad too m uch i nto w hat a pp ear s t o be a si m ple i ntro du cti on t o a co m p lex p ro ceduralhi sto ryr atherthan a r eas oned ho ldi ng, e spe ci al l y wi th o uts o m e affi r m at i ve s ta te m en t o r a ctual a na l y si s bythe c o ur t o n the po i nti n que st i o n. Pri ce a l so poi nts t o othe r I l l i noi s Su p re m e Cour t ca ses that saythe DN A te sting m ust “ si gni fi cantl y a dvance” a d efe n d a n t’s cla im of ac tu al in n oc en c e, P eop le v. Sa vo ry, 756 N
. E
. 2d 8 0 4 , 811 (I ll
. 2001), an d that the trial cou rt sh o ul d e va l ua te the evi den ce i nt r o duce d a t tr i ala nd th e e vid en c e t h e d efe n d a n t is m ov in g t o t es t, Peop l ev. Johns on , 7 93 N. E. 2d 59 1, 6 01 (I ll
. 2 00 2)
. W e ar e unc er ta i n, how eve r, how ei thero ftho se opi ni ons add re sse s, m uch l ess se ttl es, the questi ons bef or e us. W e ar e al so he si ta ntt o g i ve to o much wei g htt o the S upr eme C o ur t o fI l l i no i s’ s pas singc o m m en t i n LaP ointe because o therI l l i noi s co urt deci si ons str ongl y s ugges t that I l l i noi s doe s no t c on sid er a § 1 16- 3 m oti on t o be a co l l ate ra lat tack
. Fo r ex am ple , the A pp el l ate Courto f I l l i no i s no te d i n P eoplev. Pricethat a m otion un d er § 116-3 l ead s on ly to f or ensi c te sting, nota new tr i al
. 80 1 N
. E.2 d 1187, 1192-93 (I ll
. A p p . Ct
. 2003) ( cit ing P eoplev. Ro kita , 736 N
. E.2 d 205, 21 2 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 20 00) ) . It w ent o n to no t e tha ti t“ mus tb e c a ut i o us n o tt o ‘ c o l l a ps e ’ [ i t s ] c o ns i der at i o n o fde fen dan t’ s se ct i o n 1 16

- 3 m o ti o n a nd de fen d an t’s cla im of ac tu al in n oc en c e in to a s i n g l e an aly sis .” Id. at11 93 ( ci t i ng Peop l ev. He nde rs on , 79 9 N
. E.2 d 682, 69 2- 93 (Ill . A p p . C t. 20 03 )). F ur th er, the c o ur t i n He n d e rs on , w h i ch both part i es ci te i n supp or t o fthei r re specti ve posi ti ons, c lear l y per cei vedN o. 08
- 1401 9 a § 11 6- 3 m oti on a s a m er e d i sco ver y m oti on, se parat e fro m a c laim of ac tu al in n oc en c e, w h ich is p ro p er ly bro ught under the Pos t- Convi cti on Hea ringA ct, 72 5 I LC S 5/ 122- 1 ets eq . 79 9 N
. E.2 d at 69 2; s e eal s o Pe opl ev. Per m ani an , 886 N .E .2d 10 28, 10 31 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 20 08) ( “A s ec ti o n 1 16

- 3 o r deri ni ti at es a s epa r at e pr o ce eding i nd epe n d en t o fany cl ai m f orpost
- convi cti on o r othe r re l i ef
. ”)
. The He nde rs on c o ur t al so noted thatthe st an d ar d s fo r re vie w i n g a § 11 6-3 m ot ion an d a c laim of a c tu al in n oc e n c e a re d iffer en t. Hend erson , 799 N
. E.2 d
. at 69 2-9 3. E ven i f P rice a nd He n d e rs on a r e i nc o nc l us i ve o n the i ss ue , the S upr eme Co ur t o fI l l i no i s’ s dec i si o n in P eople v. Sh um , 79 7 N
. E.2 d 60 9 ( I l l
. 20 03) , puts the i ssue to re st. There, the defe nd ant fi l ed a pos t- convicti on peti ti on cl ai m i ng actual i nnocence and request i ng DN A te sting. Id. at61 4- 15. H e di d not fi l e a se pa ra te § 1 16- 3 m oti on b ec au se th atse c tio n h ad n o t y e t b ee n m ad e e ffec tiv e. Id. at 62 1. T h e c ou rtd id n otreq u ire th e d efe n d an t t o re -file hi s r equest f orDN A testing as a § 1 16- 3 m oti on be cause h is req u es t clea rly m et th e § 11 6-3 c r i t e r ia. Id. H ow ever, th e cour t r efused to co nsi der the defendant’s cl aim o fa ctua li nno ce nc e be ca us e th e r es ul ts o fthe t es ting w er e n otye t a va ilab le
. Id. I t was no t un til a fte r the DN A te sting had oc curr ed

— a p rod uc t of th e § 116-3 m oti on

— that the defe nd ant’ s separ ate cl ai m of actual i nnocence w as ri pe. Ourr ev i ew of t he pl ain l an g ua g e o f§ 1 16

- 3 an d the I l l i noi s s tat e cou rtdeci si ons disc ussi ng tha t pr ovi si on lea d us t o concl ud e that a m oti on under § 11 6- 3 i s no t a co l l ate ra l re vi ew o fthe und er l yi ng j ud gm ent a nd ther e-10 N o. 08
- 1401 f o r e d o e s n o tt o l lth e s t a t u t e o fl i mi t a t i o n s f o r b r i ng i ng a federa lhabea s co rpus peti ti on under 2 8 U.S
. C. § 22 55. Pr i ce ’ s ar g um en t to the c o nt r ary i s ba se d o n h i s m i su nd erstan d ing of th e proc ess th at acc om p a n ies a § 116-3 m oti on. A s th e case s di scusse d above m ake cl ear, wh en a defenda ntmove s unde r § 1 16

- 3 f o r f o r en si c te st i ng, the be sttha t ca n h appe n i s th atthe tri alc o ur t g r an ts the m o ti o n, the t es ts a r e per f o r m ed, and the de fen dan t re c e i v e s the r e s ul t s . Th e de fe nd a nt may c ho o s e to use the r esults o fthe DN A te st i n a separatepost
- convi cti on peti ti on f orr el i efcl ai m i ng hi s o r her actuali nnocence, butno he ar i nga ut o m at i ca l l y f o l l o ws. F ur th er, no th i ng i n the pl ain l an g ua g e o fthe s ta tu te o r i n a ny o fthe st at e co ur t o pi ni o ns o fwhi chwe ar e aw are gi ve s th e tr i alco urt the a uthor i ty to re l eas e a defendant fro m c u st od y u n d er § 11 6-3
. Pri ce a rgu es that Peop l ev. D odds , 80 1 N
. E.2 d 63, 68 ( I l l
. App. Ct
. 2 0 0 3 ) , a nd Peop l ev. St arks , 85 0 N
. E.2 d 206, 21 2 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 20 06) , bo th sa i d that a co u rt sho uld r elea se a d efe n d an t if D N A ev id en c e p ro ve d t o be “t ru ly excul pator y. ” How eve r, the defe nd ants i n both case s had conte m pora neousl y fi l ed m oti ons f orpost
- convi cti on relie f, an d neith er cou rt exp ressly f ou nd that § 116-3 its elf giv es a c ou rtau th or ity to rele as e a p ri s o n er . See D odds , 801 N .E .2d at65 ; St arks , 8 5 0 N. E
. 2 d a t2 1 2 ( c o nstr uingthe defe nd ant’ s unti m el y “ m oti on f ora new tr i al ” a s a m oti on f orpost
- convict i on r el i efunder 72 5 I L C S 5/122-1(d)). In li gh t of th e Sup rem e C ou rt of I ll inois’s tr ea tmento fthe i ss ue i n Shu m , 797 N
. E
. 2d 609, w e are con vince d that i t is th e m otion for p ost-con viction reli ef, and not the m oti on f orDN A te sting under § 11 6- 3, thatN o. 08
- 1401 11 gi ves an I l l i noi s co urt the a uthor i ty to re l eas e a pri sone r w ho i s s ubsequentl y e xoner ate d by DN A ev i dence. Price m istaken ly argu es th at in d ecid in g a § 116-3 m o ti o n, the t r i alc o ur t m us t det er m i ne whethe r a de fen dant i s a ctual l y innocent, o r at l eas t w hetheri t i s probab le th at h e m igh t b e. Illino is c ou rt s h av e s p ec ific ally ca u tio n ed ag ain st co n s i d er in g a d efe n d an t’s cla im o fa ctua li nno ce nc e when co ns i der i nga § 1 16

- 3 m o ti o n. Se e, e . g. , He nde rs on , 799 N .E .2d at69 2-9 3; Shu m , 79 7 N
. E.2 d at 6 21. To g ra nt r el i efunder § 116- 3, a cour t nee d no t de t e r mi ne tha ti t i s p robabl etha t a defen dan t i s i nnocent, but ra thero nl y that e vi dence pro du ced fro m re l i abl e for ensi c te sting has the sc ie ntif ic potentia l to “sig n i fi cantl y a dvance” the defendant’s cl ai m o factual in n oc en c e. Se ePe opl ev. Johns on , 793 N .E .2 d 59 1, 60 0 (Ill. 20 02 ). D et er m in in g w h et h er ev id en c e is m at er ially re l evantto a c l a i m o fa c t ua li nn o c e nc e i s a f a r c r y fr om deter m i ni ng ac tuali nnocence i tse l f; the f or m eri s a questio n ab ou t t h e p ro p r i e ty of allo w in g d isc ov er y, w h ile th e l at te r pr o vi des g r o unds f o r o ve r tu r ni nga c o nv i ct i o n. Atl e a s t t wo o th e r c i r c u i t s h a v e c o n s i d e r e d s t a t e D NA st at u te s, an d th e re su lts ar e d ivid ed
. T h e E lev en th C irc u it hel d that F l or id a’s DN A te sting st atute , Fl or i da Rule of Cri m i nalPro cedure 3. 853, d id not t ol lthe sta tute of l i m ita ti ons i n the A nti ter ro ri sm and Effecti ve Death P en alt y A c t (A E D P A ). Brown v. S ec’y for t heD ep’ tof C o rr. , 53 0 F
. 3d 1335 ( 11th Cir
. 20 08)
. The co urt described Fl or i da’s pro cess and i ts re aso ni ng: I fthe m ova nt i s s uccess ful, tho se proce du re s cul m i na te o nl y i n the r es ul ts o fthe D N A te st i ng12 N o. 08
- 1401
o r der ed bythe c o urt[ be i ng ] pr o vi ded i n wr i ting to the c o ur t, the m ovant, a nd the pr o se cut i ng author i ty. Thus, a R u le 3. 853 proce edi ng i nvol ves an appli cati on f ordi sc overyo nl y, pursuant to w hi ch the cour t l acks autho ri ty to o rderr el i ef fro m t he m ova nt’ s s entence o r convi cti on ba sed on the D N A test re sul ts. I fthe m ova nt be l i eve s th os e re su lts p ro vid e a ba sis for a su c c es sfu l co ll at er ala tt ac ko n h i s j udg m en t o fc o nv i ct i on, he m ay th en i ns titute a p roceed ing un d er Fl orida’s col l ate ra lat tackr ule s a nd o nl y in that m anner secu re suc h reli ef. Id. at 1337- 38 ( ci tat i ons and i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om itt ed). Because the I l l i noi s DN A st atute i nvol ves a vi rtual l y i denti calpro cedure to Fl or i da’s , ou r deci si on he r e ac co r ds wi ththe El ev en thCi r cui t’ s i n Br own . The F i fth Ci r c ui tr e a c he d the o pp o s i t e c o nc l us i on r eg ar di ngTe xa s’ s DN A te st i ng st atut e. In H uts on v. Q ua rter m an , 508 F.3d 23 6 (5 th C ir. 20 07 ), th e c ou rth eld that a m oti on fi l ed und er Texas’ s DN A tes ti ng st atute , Texas Cod e o fCri m i nalPro cedure ar ti cl e 6 4. 04, was a coll ateral review of th e j ud gm e nt that toll ed A E D PA ’s st at u te of lim ita tio n s. Id. a t 239. But that deci si on was sp ec ific t o T ex as ’s D N A t es tin g ru le, w h ich d iffer s in i m port ant ways from the proc edure that I l l i noi s has e s t ab l i s he d. The H us t on cour t desc ribed Texas’ s pro cedu re as f ol l ows: I fth e s e r e q u i r e me n t s [ fr o m T e x a s C o d e o fC r i mi na lPr ocedur e ar ti cl es 6 4. 01

- 64
. 03 ] a r e m et, the co ur t m ayo r derDNA t es ting . A ft ere xa m i ni ngN o. 08
- 1401 13 th e resu lts ofthe t e s t ing, th e con victing cou rt s h a l l h o l d a h e a r i ng an d m ake a fi nd i ng as to w hetheri t i s r eas onabl y pr obab l e that the per son w oul d n ot h ave been convi cted had the re sul ts b ee n av aila b le d u r i n g t h e t ria l of th e o ffen se . I f th e c on vic tin g c ou rtd ec id es th at th e fin d i n g is fav or ab le t o th e c on vic te d p er so n u n d er art icle 64 .04 , t hec our tm ay re l e as ethec onvi ct e d p e rs on on b a i lp e nd i ngthe c o nc l us i o n o fc o ur tp r o c e e di ng s orpro ceedi ngs under Se cti on 11, A rt i cl e I V, Texas Consti tutio n, and A rt i cl e 4 8. 01. S ecti on 1 1 o f A rt i cl e IV and A rt i cl e 4 8. 01 gi ve the g ove rno r pow erto pardon a nd di ctat e the pro cedure f or par do ni nga c o nv i ct ed per so n. Id. at 238- 39 ( f oo tnot es and in ternalquotat i on m ar ks om itt ed) ( em phasi s a dd ed). A s underst oo d by the Fi fth Cir cui t, Texas’ s DN A te sting pro cedure p ro vi des f oran autom ati c co nsi derat i on of the t est i ng r esul ts that m ay ul ti m at ely l ea d t o a de fen d an t’ s r el ea se fr o m pr i so n. The cou rt also reli ed on a nu m ber of Tex as stat e cou rt opi ni ons th at i t char acte ri zed as equating “the Texas sta tute provi ding f orpost
- convict i on DN A pro ceedi ngs w i th habe as cor pu s pro c ee d in gs i n that both m ake a col l ate ra l i nquiry i nto the val i dity of the con vi cti on. ” Id
. at 239 (intern al quo tation m arks om itted ). U nl i ke Tex as’s proce du re , a m oti on f orpost
- convi cti on DN A te sting i n I l l i noi s d oe s n ot autom ati cal l y l ead to a cour t’ s det erm i nati on o fthe defe nd ant’ s a ctuali nnocence. N or d oes a cour t hav e the autho ri ty to re l eas e a p risoner un d er § 116-3. B eca us e of th ese im p ortan t d if

-14 N o. 08
- 1401 fer en ce s, we fi nd the de ci si o n in Hu t s on ina p p os ite
. C f. Br own , 530 F.3d at13 38
. A few fed er al d ist ric t c ou rt s h av e a lso ad d re ss ed th is iss u e. SeeWolf v. C arrol l , N o . C i v . A. 0 4

- 1 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 WL 24 5488 9, a t * 4 ( D. De l
. Oc t. 5 , 2 00 5) ( ho l di ngwi th o ut di sc us si on tha t “a mot i o n fo r po st
- co nv i ct i o n r el i efa nd DN A te sting” under De laware l aw to l l ed A ED PA ’ s s tat
u te of lim ita tio n s); M cD ona ld v. Sm ith , N o. 02
- CV

- 6743 , 20 03 W L 2 22 84 13 1, a t * 5 ( E. D. N
. Y. Aug. 21 , 2 00 3) ( “Mot i o ns p urs ua nt to [ N e w York’s D N A testing sta tu te] are m ot ions to vacat e a nd , ther ef or e, chal l enge the c onvi cti on. ”)
. The m oti ons und erDel aw ar e a nd N ew Y or k l aw appear t o hol d the pot enti alto r elea se a pri sone r sh ou ld th e D N A eviden ce com e outi n th e prison er’s f avo r, si m i l arto the p ro c es s un der Texas l aw di scusse d i n H uts on . T he r e f o r e , we fi nd Wolf a nd M cD ona ldas i napp osi te as H uts on , a nd f o r the s ame r ea so n. W e no te tha t o urde ci si o n h er e sh ou l d no t ha ve the uninte nd ed conse que n ce o ff or ci ng pri sone rs to choo se betw een pu rsu ing ha beas corp us rel iefi n fed eral co urt or D N A te st in g in st at e c ou rt . See H uts on , 508 F .3d at 239
- 40 ( re aso ni ng tha t “ [ c ]om ity
. . . di ctat es that the federa l c o u r t s gi ve Te x a s c o u r t s th e t i me t o r e v i e w th e s e D NA cl ai m s an d pr o vi de ne ce ss ary r el i efwi th o utf orcing c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n s t o c h o o s e b e t we e n th e t wo s y s t e ms th ereby u nd erm ining th e rem ed y the T ex as legi slature h as p ro vid ed ”). A s o th er c as es h av e m ad e a b u n d an tly c lea r, a pri sone r w ho wishe s t o pu rs ue bo th federa l ha bea s r e lief an d m ove for DN A testing u nd er § 116-3 m ay ti m el y fi l e hi s o r her h ab ea s peti ti on a nd then m oveN o. 08
- 1401 15 to sta y the federa lpro ceedi ngs whil e the Il lin oi s co urts c on sid er th e D N A te st in g m ot ion
. Se e, e . g. , Pacev. Di G u g l i e l mo , 54 4 U.S
. 40 8, 41 6 (20 05 ); Ne wel l v. Hanks , 28 3 F. 3d 827, 83 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. A l though a m oti on under § 1 1 6

- 3 i s n o ta c o l l a t e r a lr e v i e w o fa j ud g men ta nd ther ef o r e do es no t to l lAEDPA ’ s s tatute o fl i m i ta ti o ns , the p rin c i p l es of co m ity , fin alit y, an d fed er alis m sh ou ld str ongl y m i l i tat e in f avo r ofstay in g a pri sone r’ s federa l hab e a s p e t i t i o n whi l e I l l i no i s c o ur t s h a v e a n o pp o r t unit y to con side r the p risoner’s § 116-3 m otion, an d w he re ap p r o p riate, sub seq ue nt coll ateral attac k on th e un d erl yi ng j ud gm ent.
III. C ON CLU SI ON W e A F F I RM th e d istri ct cou rt’s dism issal of Pric e ’s peti ti on f ora w ri t o fhabea s co rpus as unti m el y.

8- 13- 10