Joseph Stanley Harjo v State Of Oklahoma
F-2017-889
Filed: Apr. 1, 2021
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Joseph Stanley Harjo
Summary
Joseph Stanley Harjo appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse. His conviction and sentence were for life in prison. Judge Hudson dissented. In this case, Joseph was found guilty by a jury, but he argued that the state did not have the right to try him because he is a member of the Creek Nation, and the crime happened on Creek land. The court decided to investigate whether he truly had Indian status and whether the crime took place within the Creek Reservation. After a hearing, both sides agreed on facts: Joseph has Indian blood, is recognized as an Indian by a tribe, and the crime occurred on the Creek Reservation. The court found that because of this, the State of Oklahoma did not have the right to prosecute him. Therefore, Harjo's conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to be dismissed.
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS.
Issues
- Was there jurisdiction for the District Court to try Appellant given his claim of Indian status and the location of the crime?
- Did Appellant establish his status as an Indian under federal law?
- Did the crimes occur on the Creek Reservation, thus placing them in Indian Country?
- Was the State required to prove it has jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant following the evidentiary hearing?
- Did the Agreed Stipulation between the parties resolve the questions of Appellant's Indian status and the crime's location?
- Was relief warranted for Appellant based on the District Court's findings and the principles established in McGirt v. Oklahoma?
Findings
- The State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant.
- The Judgment and Sentence in this case is hereby reversed.
- The case is remanded to the District Court of Muskogee County with instructions to dismiss the case.
F-2017-889
Apr. 1, 2021
Joseph Stanley Harjo
Appellantv
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
OPINION
JOHN D. HADDEN, JUDGE:
Appellant, Joseph Stanley Harjo, was tried by a jury and convicted of Child Sexual Abuse, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(E), in the District Court of Muskogee County, Case No. CF-2016-692. The jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment. The Honorable Norman D. Thygesen, Associate District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Harjo in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Appellant must serve 85% of the sentence imposed before becoming eligible for parole. Appellant now appeals from this conviction and sentence.
In Proposition I of his brief in chief, Appellant claims the District Court lacked jurisdiction to try him. Appellant argues that he is a citizen of the Creek Nation and the crime in this case 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 Muskogee 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 fact and conclusions of law with this Court.
On remand, the parties filed with the District Court an Agreed Stipulation announcing and requesting the Court accept the following stipulations: 1) Appellant is 1/4th degree Indian blood; 2) Appellant is an enrolled member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and was such in 2016 at the time of the charged crime; 3) the Muscogee (Creek) Nation is an Indian Tribal Entity recognized by the federal government; and 4) the charged crime occurred within the Creek Reservation. The Agreed Stipulation was signed by counsel for both parties including attorneys from the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office, the Muskogee County District Attorney’s Office and counsel for Appellant.
On October 14, 2020, Judge Thygesen filed an Order containing his written findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Order thereafter was timely filed with this Court along with the Agreed Stipulation which is included as an attachment. 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 or by the federal government and therefore Appellant is an Indian under federal law. Finally, the District Court accepted and adopted the stipulation of the parties that the crime in this case occurred on the Creek Reservation.
On November 9, 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 federal authorities may secure custody of Appellant. 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 1/4th degree Indian blood and being a member of the Muscogee (Creek) 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 Muskogee County with instructions to dismiss the case.
DECISION
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS.
**APPEARANCES AT TRIAL**
Chad Johnson
Okla. Indigent Def. System
P.O. Box 926
Norman, OK 73070
Counsel for Defendant
Orvil Loge
District Attorney
Muskogee County
**APPEARANCES ON APPEAL**
Garrett Marshall
Okla. Indigent Def. System
P.O. Box 926
Norman, OK 73070
Counsel for Appellant
Mike Hunter
Okla. Attorney General
Jay Schniederjan
Asst. Attorney General
313 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Counsel for Appellee
**OPINION BY: HUDSON, J.**
KUEHN, P.J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
ROWLAND, V.P.J.: CONCUR
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
LEWIS, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
LEWIS, JUDGE, CONCURRING IN RESULTS: Based on my special writings in *Bosse v. State*, 2021 OK CR 3, P.3d and *Hogner v. State*, 2021 OK CR 4, P.3d, I concur in results to the decision to dismiss this case for the lack of state jurisdiction.
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S. Supp. 2014, § 843.5(E)
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
- 22 O.S. 2011, § 846
- Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, P.3d (Hudson, J., Concur in Results)
- Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, P.3d (Hudson, J., Specially Concurs)
- Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021) (Hudson, J., Specially Concurs) (unpublished)
- Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law (1942)
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.5 (2014) - Child Sexual Abuse
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 846 (2011) - Custody of Appellant
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:
- Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800
- 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)