Jeffery Arch Jones v State Of Oklahoma

F-2017-1245

Filed: Apr. 8, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Jeffery Arch Jones appealed his conviction for five counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12. Conviction and sentence reversed. Judge Lumpkin dissented.

Decision

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 a jurisdiction issue regarding the prosecution of Appellant due to his Indian status and the location of the crimes?
• Did the District Court correctly determine Appellant's status as an Indian and whether the crimes occurred in Indian Country?
• Was the burden of proof on the State regarding jurisdiction after Appellant established prima facie evidence of his Indian status and the crime's location?
• Did the Court of Criminal Appeals find that the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant based on the findings from the District Court?
• Was the case remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss due to the lack of jurisdiction?

Findings

• The court did not err in conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction.
• The District Court's findings were supported by the stipulations made by the parties.
• The evidence was sufficient to establish Appellant’s status as an Indian under federal law.
• The evidence was sufficient to prove the crimes occurred in Indian Country.
• The State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant.
• The Judgment and Sentence in this case was reversed and the case was remanded to dismiss.

F-2017-1245

Apr. 8, 2021

Jeffery Arch Jones

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

HUDSON, JUDGE: Jeffery Arch Jones was tried by jury and convicted in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-2017-973, of five counts of Sexual Abuse-Child Under 12, in violation of 21 D.S. Supp. 2012, § 843.5(F). In accordance with the jury’s recommendation the Honorable William D. LaFortune, District Judge, sentenced Appellant to forty years imprisonment on Counts 1, 2 and 4; thirty years imprisonment on Count 3, and twenty-five years imprisonment on Count 6. Judge LaFortune ran the sentences for all five counts consecutively. Appellant must serve 85% of his sentences before becoming eligible for parole consideration. Appellant appeals from these convictions and sentences.

In Proposition Two, Appellant claims the District Court lacked jurisdiction to try him. Appellant 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), Appellant’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 Appellant’s presentation of prima facie evidence as to Appellant’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 Appellant 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 on September 25, 2020, before the Honorable Tracy L. Priddy, District Judge. A written findings of fact and conclusions of law from that hearing 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 Appellant. In its written findings of fact and conclusion of law, the District Court stated that the parties have stipulated that Appellant has a blood quantum of 29/64; that Appellant is an enrolled 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; the verification for Appellant’s tribal enrollment and blood quantum are attached to the written stipulation submitted by the parties; and the crimes charged in this case occurred within the Creek Reservation boundaries.

The District Court attached as Exhibit 1 to its findings of facts and conclusions of law a document entitled Agreed Stipulation 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 Appellant has some Indian blood, that he is also recognized as an Indian by a tribe and the federal government and therefore Appellant 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 December 7, 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 Appellant 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 Appellant. 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 Appellant has met his burden of establishing his status as an Indian, having an Indian blood quantum of 29/64 and being a member of the Cherokee Nation. We further find Appellant 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 Appellant 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 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. 21 D.S.Supp.2 2012, § 843.5(F).
2. McGirt U. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020).
3. 22 O.S.2011, § 846.
4. Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021) (unpublished).
5. Bosso U. State, 2021 OK CR 3, P. .3d (Hudson, J., Concur in Results); Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, _P.3d_.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.5 (2012) - Sexual Abuse of a Child Under 12
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 846 (2011) - Procedure for Applicability of Enforced Judgment of Conviction
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.5(F) - Sexual Abuse of a Child

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)