Matthew Steven Janson v State Of Oklahoma

C-2017-1027

Filed: Apr. 1, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Matthew Steven Janson

Summary

Matthew Steven Janson appealed his conviction for aggravated possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. His conviction and sentence were reversed. Judge Lumpkin dissented.

Decision

Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS. The MANDATE is not to be issued until twenty (20) days from the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there jurisdiction for the state to accept the plea given the petitioner's status as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and the location of the crimes?
• Did the crimes occur on the Creek Reservation, thus qualifying as Indian Country under federal law?
• Was the petitioner able to establish his status as an Indian with sufficient documentation during the evidentiary hearing?

Findings

• The District Court did not have jurisdiction to accept Petitioner's plea.
• The crimes occurred in Indian Country.
• The Judgment and Sentence is reversed and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss.

C-2017-1027

Apr. 1, 2021

Matthew Steven Janson

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

HUDSON, JUDGE: Petitioner, Matthew Steven Janson, was charged in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-2016-5428, with Count 1: Aggravated Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1040.12a; and Count 2: Distribution of Child Pornography, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2. Petitioner entered a blind plea to the charges on February 27, 2017, before the Honorable Sharon Holmes, District Judge. The trial court accepted Petitioner’s plea and deferred sentencing pending the completion and filing of a presentence investigation report. On August 8, 2017, Judge Holmes sentenced Petitioner to ten years imprisonment each on Counts 1 and 2, to run concurrently, with the last five years suspended. Petitioner must serve 85% of his sentences before becoming eligible for parole consideration.

On August 15, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his blind plea. A hearing on Petitioner’s motion was held on September 7 and 27, 2017. After hearing argument from counsel for both parties, Judge Holmes denied Petitioner’s motion to withdraw his plea. Petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari. In his sole proposition of error, Petitioner claims the District Court lacked jurisdiction to accept his plea. Petitioner argues that he is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and the crimes occurred within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation. Pursuant to McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), Petitioner’s claim raises two separate questions: (a) his Indian status; and (b) whether the crimes occurred on the Creek Reservation. These issues require fact-finding. We therefore remanded this case to the District Court of Tulsa County for an evidentiary hearing.

Recognizing the historical and specialized nature of this remand for evidentiary hearing, we requested the Attorney General and District Attorney work in coordination to effect uniformity and completeness in the hearing process. Upon Petitioner’s presentation of prima facie evidence as to Petitioner’s legal status as an Indian and as to the location of the crime in Indian Country, the burden shifts to the State to prove it has jurisdiction. The District Court was ordered to determine whether Petitioner has some Indian blood and is recognized as an Indian by a tribe or the federal government. The District Court was further ordered to determine whether the crimes in this case occurred in Indian Country. In so doing, the District Court was directed to consider any evidence the parties provided, including but not limited to treaties, statutes, maps, and/or testimony. We also directed the District Court that in the event the parties agreed as to what the evidence would show with regard to the questions presented, the parties may enter into a written stipulation setting forth those facts upon which they agree and which answer the questions presented and provide the stipulation to the District Court. The District Court was also ordered to file written findings of facts and conclusions of law with this Court.

A status hearing was held in this case before the Honorable Tracy L. Priddy, District Judge. Thereafter, a written findings of fact and conclusions of law was timely filed with this Court. The record indicates that appearing before the District Court on this matter were attorneys from the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office, the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office, and counsel for Petitioner.

In its written findings of fact and conclusion of law, the District Court stated that the parties have stipulated that Petitioner has 3/128 degree Cherokee blood; that Petitioner is a member of the Cherokee Nation and was so at the time of the charged crimes; that the Cherokee Nation is an Indian Tribal Entity recognized by the federal government; and the crimes charged in this case occurred within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation. The District Court attached as Exhibit 1 to its findings of facts and conclusions of law a document entitled Stipulations signed by all counsel reflecting these stipulations. The District Court accepted and adopted the stipulations made by the parties and concluded in its findings of fact and conclusions of law that Petitioner has some Indian blood, that he is also recognized as an Indian by a tribe and the federal government, and therefore Petitioner is an Indian under federal law. Finally, the District Court accepted the stipulation of the parties that the crimes in this case occurred on the Creek Reservation and, thus, found the crimes occurred in Indian Country for purposes of federal law.

On November 24, 2020, the State filed with this Court a supplemental brief after remand. In its brief, the State acknowledges the District Court accepted the parties’ stipulations as discussed above and references the District Court’s findings. The State contends in its brief that should this Court find Petitioner is entitled to relief based on the District Court’s findings, this Court should stay any order reversing the conviction for thirty (30) days so that the appropriate authorities can review his case, determine whether it is appropriate to file charges and take custody of Petitioner. Cf. 22 O.S.2011, § 846.

After thorough consideration of this proposition and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and the briefs of the parties, we find that under the law and evidence, relief is warranted. Based upon the record before us, the District Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the stipulations jointly made by the parties on remand. We therefore find Petitioner has met his burden of establishing his status as an Indian, having 3/128 degree Cherokee blood and being a member of the Cherokee Nation. We further find Petitioner met his burden of proving the crimes in this case occurred on the Creek Reservation and, thus, occurred in Indian Country.

Pursuant to McGirt, we find the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Petitioner in this matter. The Judgment and Sentence in this case is hereby reversed and the case remanded to the District Court of Tulsa County with instructions to dismiss the case.

DECISION:

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS. The MANDATE is not to be issued until twenty (20) days from the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1040.12a
2. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1021.2
3. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 846
4. McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
5. Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, P.3d
6. Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, P.3d
7. Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1040.12a - Aggravated Possession of Child Pornography
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1021.2 - Distribution of Child Pornography
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 846 - Motion to withdraw plea

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
• Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, P.3d
• Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, P.3d
• Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021)