Shawn Lee McDaniel v The State of Oklahoma

F-2017-357

Filed: Apr. 29, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Shawn Lee McDaniel

Summary

Shawn Lee McDaniel appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. His conviction and sentence were for life imprisonment. McDaniel argued that the state of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute him because the crime happened on land that is part of Indian Country, where federal law applies. The court agreed with him and decided that both the victim was an Indian and the crime occurred within Cherokee Nation boundaries. As a result, the court vacated McDaniel's conviction and ordered that the case be dismissed. There was a dissenting opinion, with some judges expressing concerns about the implications of the decision.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is VACATED and the 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 jurisdiction challenge regarding the State's ability to prosecute McDaniel?
• Did the court determine whether the murder victim was an Indian as defined by federal law?
• Was the alleged crime committed within Indian country as defined by federal law?
• Did the District Court correctly conclude that the victim was an Indian under federal law?
• Was there a finding that the charged crime occurred within the historical boundaries of the Cherokee Nation Reservation?
• Did the State of Oklahoma argue that it had concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over crimes committed in Indian country?
• Did the court ultimately grant McDaniel's Proposition regarding the lack of jurisdiction for the District Court of Muskogee County to prosecute him?

Findings

• the court found that the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute McDaniel
• the court adopted the District Court's ruling that the victim was an Indian under federal law
• the court agreed with the District Court's conclusion that the crime occurred within Indian country
• the court vacated the judgment and sentence of the District Court
• the court remanded the matter with instructions to dismiss

F-2017-357

Apr. 29, 2021

Shawn Lee McDaniel

Appellant

v

The State of Oklahoma

Appellee

OPINION

ROWLAND, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:

Appellant Shawn Lee McDaniel appeals his conviction in Muskogee County District Court, Case No. CF-2015-249, for First Degree Murder, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7(A). The Honorable Thomas H. Alford, District Judge, presided over McDaniel’s jury trial and sentenced him, in accordance with the jury’s verdict, to life imprisonment. McDaniel raises seven issues for review. His jurisdiction challenge, contesting the State’s jurisdiction to prosecute him, requires relief. We address only that claim and find his other claims are moot. This appeal turns on whether the murder 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.

1. Controlling Law: McGirt v. Oklahoma

In McGirt U. 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. Although the case now before us involves the lands of the Cherokee Nation, McGirt’s reasoning is nevertheless controlling.

2. Jurisdiction

Federal and tribal governments, not the State of Oklahoma, have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by or against Indians on an Indian reservation. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 1153; McGirt, 140 S.Ct. at 2479-80. The charge of first degree murder filed against McDaniel in this case fits squarely within the crimes subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction. See State U. Klindt, 1989 OK CR 75, I 2 3, 782 P.2d 401, 403 ([T]he State of Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against an Indian in Indian Country.)

3. Two Questions Upon Remand

A. McDaniel’s Status as Indian

After McGirt was decided, this Court, on August 19, 2020, remanded this case to the District Court of Muskogee County for an evidentiary hearing. We directed the District Court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on two issues: (a) the victim’s status as an Indian; and (b) whether the crime occurred in Indian Country, namely within the boundaries of the Cherokee Nation Reservation. Our Order provided that, if the parties agreed as to what the evidence would show with regard to the questions presented, the parties could enter into a written stipulation setting forth those facts, and no hearing would be necessary. On September 29, 2020, the parties appeared for an evidentiary hearing before the Honorable Bret Smith, District Judge. The District Court admitted the parties’ joint stipulation, acknowledged the presence of the Cherokee Nation’s deputy attorney general appearing as amicus curiae, and accepted the amicus brief filed on behalf of the tribe. The joint stipulation provided that: (1) the charged crime occurred within the historic boundaries of the Cherokee Nation; (2) the victim has some Indian blood; (3) the victim was a recognized citizen of the Cherokee Nation on the date of his death; and (4) the Cherokee Nation is a federally recognized tribe. On March 12, 2021, the District Court filed its Second Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The District Court found the facts recited above in accordance with the joint stipulation. The District Court correctly concluded that, on the date of his death, the victim, Billy Fools, was an Indian under federal law. 1 We adopt this ruling.

B. Whether the Crime Was Committed in Indian Country

As to the second question on remand, whether the crime was committed in Indian country, the stipulation of the parties was less dispositive. They acknowledged only that the charged crime occurred within the historical geographic area of the Cherokee Nation as noted in the record. At the evidentiary hearing, the State took no position on whether Congress established a reservation for the Cherokee Nation or whether Congress ever erased those boundaries and disestablished the reservation. Based on the parties’ stipulation and the materials submitted by McDaniel and the Cherokee Nation at the evidentiary hearing, the District Court concluded that Congress established a reservation for the Cherokee Nation, that the charged crime against McDaniel occurred within the boundaries of that reservation, and that Congress never disestablished the Cherokee Nation Reservation. We agree. See Spears v. State, 2021 OK CR 7, II 11-15, P.3d (holding Congress established a reservation for the Cherokee Nation and it remains intact because Congress has not disestablished it). Hence, for purposes of federal criminal law, the land upon which the parties agree McDaniel committed the crime is Indian country. While the State concedes that the victim was an Indian under federal law and that the charged crime occurred within Indian country, the State maintains that federal jurisdiction over crimes committed against Indians in Indian Country pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 is not exclusive. The State argues in its Supplemental Brief that Oklahoma has concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over crimes committed by non-Indian defendants against Indian victims in Indian country. We rejected the State’s same argument regarding concurrent jurisdiction in Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, II 23-28, P.3d . Under the analysis in McGirt, we must therefore hold that the District Court of Muskogee County was without jurisdiction to prosecute McDaniel. Accordingly, we grant McDaniel’s Proposition 1.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is VACATED and the 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.

1

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7(A)
2. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 1153
3. State v. Klindt, 1989 OK CR 75, ¶ 23, 782 P.2d 401, 403
4. McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020)
5. Spears v. State, 2021 OK CR 7, ¶¶ 11-15, ___ P.3d ___
6. Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, ¶¶ 23-28, ___ P.3d ___
7. Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, ___ P.3d ___
8. Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021) (unpublished)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7 - First Degree Murder
• Okla. Stat. tit. 18 § 1152 - Federal jurisdiction over crimes in Indian Country
• Okla. Stat. tit. 18 § 1153 - Federal jurisdiction over Indian crimes

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1152 - Crimes Committed in Indian Country
• 18 U.S.C. § 1153 - Major Crimes Act

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. , 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020)
• State v. Klindt, 1989 OK CR 75, 782 P.2d 401
• Spears v. State, 2021 OK CR 7
• Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3
• Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4
• Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021)