Erik Sherney Williams v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2016-937

Filed: Mar. 25, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Erik Sherney Williams appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. The conviction and sentence were for life in prison without the possibility of parole. Justice Rowland wrote the opinion for the court. In this case, Williams argued that the Oklahoma court did not have the right to try him because the crime happened in "Indian Country," where only federal and tribal authorities can prosecute. This situation arose because the victim was recognized as an Indian and the crime took place on the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. The court agreed that the Tulsa County District Court should not have had jurisdiction over the case according to a previous Supreme Court decision called McGirt v. Oklahoma. Therefore, Williams's conviction was overturned and the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss it. Justice Lumpkin dissented, expressing concerns about the legal conclusions drawn in the case, while Justices Lewis and Hudson concurred, maintaining that the state had no authority to prosecute based on the established federal laws and the status of the reservation.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2021), the MANDATE is ORDERED to issue in twenty (20) days from the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there a jurisdictional error due to the State not initiating prosecution within the time frame mandated by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act?
• Did ineffective assistance of counsel deprive the appellant of a fair trial?
• Did the district court lack jurisdiction because the victim was an "Indian" and the crime occurred in "Indian Country"?

Findings

• The court erred in determining it had jurisdiction over Williams's case.
• The evidence was sufficient to establish that the victim was an Indian under federal law.
• The court correctly concluded the crime occurred in Indian country as defined by federal law.
• The claims regarding the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act and ineffective assistance of counsel were rendered moot.

F-2016-937

Mar. 25, 2021

Erik Sherney Williams

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

ROWLAND, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Erik Sherney Williams was tried by jury and convicted of First Degree Murder, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7, in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2014-4936. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable James M. Caputo sentenced Williams to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Williams raises the following errors on appeal: (1) The district court was without jurisdiction over his case because the State did not initiate prosecution within the time frame mandated by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act; (2) Ineffective assistance of counsel deprived him of a fair trial; and (3) The district court lacked jurisdiction over his case because the victim was an Indian and the crime occurred in Indian Country.

This appeal turns on whether the victim was an Indian as defined by federal law, and whether the alleged crime was committed within Indian country as that term is defined by federal law. Because the answer to both questions is yes, federal law grants exclusive criminal jurisdiction to the federal government. Because we find relief is required on Williams’s jurisdictional challenge in Proposition 3, his other claims are moot.

1. Controlling Law: McGirt v. Oklahoma

In McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. , 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020), the Supreme Court held that land set aside for the Muscogee-Creek Nation in the 1800’s was intended by Congress to be an Indian reservation, and that this reservation remains in existence today for purposes of federal criminal law because Congress has never explicitly disestablished it.

2. Jurisdiction

Federal and tribal governments, not the State of Oklahoma, have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by or against Indians on the Muscogee Creek Reservation. The following facts support this determination: (1) The victim had some Indian blood (17/64 degree Indian blood); (2) she was a recognized member of the Muscogee Creek Nation on the date of her death; (3) the Muscogee Creek Nation is a federally recognized tribe; and (4) the charged crime occurred within the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation.

The district court accepted the parties’ stipulation. The district court issued written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on December 8, 2020. Judge Priddy correctly concluded, based on the joint stipulation and the supporting documentation submitted, that on the date of the charged crimes, the victim was an Indian for purposes of federal law. As to the second question on remand, whether the crimes were committed in Indian country, Judge Priddy correctly concluded the crime occurred on the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation which, based on McGirt, is Indian country under federal law.

The State raised the issue of concurrent jurisdiction below. The State briefed and argued that Oklahoma and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction over all crimes committed by non-Indians in Indian country, including Williams’s case. Williams moved to strike the State’s brief and the parties presented brief argument on the issue. The district court refused to strike the State’s brief, but made no ruling on the issue of concurrent jurisdiction, finding the issue was beyond the scope of the remand order. The parties filed supplemental briefs in this Court following remand, addressing concurrent jurisdiction. We rejected the State’s same argument regarding concurrent jurisdiction in Bosse U. State, 2021 OK CR 3.

For these reasons, we hold, under the analysis in McGirt, that the District Court of Tulsa County did not have jurisdiction to try Williams for murder. Accordingly, we grant Proposition 3.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2021), the MANDATE is ORDERED to issue in twenty (20) days from the delivery and filing of this decision.

—

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

KEVIN D. ADAMS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
212 WEST 12TH ST.
MON ABRI BUSINESS CENTER
TULSA, OK 74119
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL & EVIDENTIARY HEARING

JAMES L. HANKINS
2524 N. BROADWAY
EDMOND, OK 73034
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

ERIK GRAYLESS
MIKE HUNTER
BECKY JOHNSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF OKLAHOMA
TULSA COUNTY
THOMAS LEE TUCKER
RANDALL YOUNG
JENNIFER L. CRABB
ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL
313 N.E. 21ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: ROWLAND, V.P.J.
KUEHN, P.J.: Concur
LUMPKIN, J.: Concur in Results
LEWIS, J.: Specially Concur
HUDSON, J.: Specially Concur

LUMPKIN, JUDGE: CONCURRING IN RESULTS: Bound by my oath and the Federal-State relationships dictated by the U.S. Constitution, I must at a minimum concur in the results of this opinion. While our nation’s judicial structure requires me to apply the majority opinion in the 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), I do so reluctantly. Upon the first reading of the majority opinion in McGirt, I initially formed the belief that it was a result in search of an opinion to support it. Then upon reading the dissents by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, I was forced to conclude the Majority had totally failed to follow the Court’s own precedents, but had cherry picked statutes and treaties, without giving historical context to them.

The Majority then proceeded to do what an average citizen who had been fully informed of the law and facts as set out in the dissents would view as an exercise of raw judicial power to reach a decision which contravened not only the history leading to the disestablishment of the Indian reservations in Oklahoma, but also willfully disregarded and failed to apply the Court’s own precedents to the issue at hand. My quandary is one of ethics and morality. One of the first things I was taught when I began my service in the Marine Corps was that I had a duty to follow lawful orders, and that same duty required me to resist unlawful orders.

Chief Justice Roberts’ scholarly and judicially penned dissent, actually following the Court’s precedents and required analysis, vividly reveals the failure of the majority opinion to follow the rule of law and apply over a century of precedent and history, and to accept the fact that no Indian reservations remain in the State of Oklahoma. The result seems to be some form of social justice created out of whole cloth rather than a continuation of the solid precedents the Court has established over the last 100 years or more.

The question I see presented is should I blindly follow and apply the majority opinion or do I join with Chief Justice Roberts and the dissenters in McGirt and recognize the emperor has no clothes as to the adherence to following the rule of law in the application of the McGirt decision? My oath and adherence to the Federal-State relationship under the U.S. Constitution mandate that I fulfill my duties and apply the edict of the majority opinion in McGirt. However, I am not required to do so blindly and without noting the flaws of the opinion as set out in the dissents.

LEWIS, JUDGE, SPECIALLY CONCURRING: I write separately to note that I am bound by my special writings in Bosse U. State and Hogner U. State. Following the precedent of McGirt U. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020), Oklahoma has no jurisdiction over persons who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. This crime occurred within the historical boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reservation and that Reservation has not been expressly disestablished by the United States Congress. Additionally, the crime occurred against Indian victims, thus the jurisdiction is governed by the Major Crimes Act found in the United States Code. Oklahoma, therefore, has no jurisdiction, concurrent or otherwise, over the appellant in this case. Thus, I concur that this case must be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. Jurisdiction is in the hands of the United States Government.

HUDSON, J., SPECIALLY CONCURS: Today’s decision dismisses a first degree murder conviction from the District Court of Tulsa County based on the Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020). This decision is unquestionably correct as a matter of stare decisis based on the Indian status of the victim and the occurrence of this crime on the Creek Reservation. Under McGirt, the State has no jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant for the murder in this case. Instead, Appellant must be prosecuted in federal court. I therefore as a matter of stare decisis fully concur in today’s decision. Further, I maintain my previously expressed views on the significance of McGirt, its far-reaching impact on the criminal justice system in Oklahoma, and the need for a practical solution by Congress.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7
2. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 2
3. McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. , 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020)
4. Bosse U. State, 2021 OK CR 3, II 23-28, P.3d
5. McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
6. Hogner U. State, 2021 OK CR 4, P.3d
7. Krafft U. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7 - First Degree Murder
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - Rules of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1152 - General Application of Federal Criminal Law to Indian Country
• 18 U.S.C. § 2 - Principals

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. , 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)