Joses Ric-E Beck v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2019-115

Filed: Apr. 8, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Joses Ric-E Beck

Summary

Joses Ric-e Beck appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary, Aggravated Assault and Battery, and three counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. Conviction and sentence vacated. Judge Hudson dissented. In simpler terms, Joses Beck was found guilty of breaking into a place and hurting people, which was why he went to jail. But he said it wasn't fair because he believed the court didn't have the right to judge him as he was considered an "Indian" and the crimes happened on land treated like a reservation. The court agreed that they couldn't judge him based on the law, so they canceled his punishment and sent his case back to be dismissed.

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 violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy and statutory prohibition against multiple punishment for Counts 3, 4, and 5?
• Did the evidence support three convictions for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and warrant the reversal of Counts 3 and 5?
• Was there a denial of a fair trial due to the admission of prejudicial evidence of other crimes and bad acts?
• Did the district court fail to adequately instruct the jury?
• Was there a denial of a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct?
• Did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering consecutive sentences?
• Did the State of Oklahoma lack jurisdiction to prosecute Beck because he is an "Indian" and the crime occurred in "Indian Country"?

Findings

• the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Beck because he is an "Indian" and the crimes occurred in "Indian Country"
• the other claims raised by Beck are moot due to the jurisdictional determination
• the district court's judgment and sentence are vacated
• the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss

F-2019-115

Apr. 8, 2021

Joses Ric-E Beck

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

OPINION

ROWLAND, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:

Appellant Beck was tried by jury in the District Court of Johnston County, Case No. CF-2017-23, and convicted of First Degree Burglary (Count 1), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1431; Aggravated Assault and Battery (Count 2), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 646(A)(2); and three counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (Counts 3, 4, and 5), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 645, each after former conviction of two or more felonies. In accordance with the jury’s verdict, the Honorable Wallace Coppedge, District Judge, sentenced Beck to thirty years imprisonment on Count 1, life imprisonment on Count 2, and thirty-five years imprisonment on each of Counts 3, 4, and 5, and ordered Counts 1 through 4 to run consecutively and Count 5 to run concurrently with Count 4.

Beck raises the following errors on appeal: (1) His convictions for Counts 3, 4, and 5 violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy and statutory prohibition against multiple punishment; (2) The evidence was insufficient to support three convictions for Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Counts 3 and 5 should be reversed; (3) He was denied a fair trial by the admission of prejudicial evidence of other crimes and bad acts; (4) The district court failed to adequately instruct the jury; (5) He was denied a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct; (6) The district court abused its discretion when it ordered his sentences to be served consecutively; and (7) The State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him because he is an Indian and the crime occurred in Indian Country.

This appeal turns on whether Beck is an Indian as defined by federal law, and whether he committed first degree burglary and the various assaults 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 on at least the burglary charge, and possibly the assault charges as well. In any event, the State of Oklahoma was without jurisdiction to prosecute him on any of the counts. Because we find relief is required on Beck’s jurisdictional challenge in Proposition 7, his other claims are moot.

1. Jurisdiction and The Major Crimes Act

Title 18 Section 1153 of the United States Code, known as the Major Crimes Act, grants exclusive federal jurisdiction to prosecute certain enumerated offenses committed by Indians within Indian country. It reads in relevant part as follows:

Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, a felony under chapter 109A, incest, a felony assault under section 113, an assault against an individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, felony child abuse or neglect, arson, burglary, robbery, and a felony under section 661 of this title within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) (2013).

Count 1, the first degree burglary charge, fits squarely within the Major Crimes Act and its exclusive federal jurisdiction. Whether Counts 2 through 5 are among the enumerated crimes is less clear. The assaults may constitute a felony assault under section 113, but that is not something we must decide today. If the assaults are not covered under Section 1153, they are subject to the Act’s sister statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1152 (1948), which applies to other offenses and provides for federal or tribal jurisdiction. In either event, the State of Oklahoma is without jurisdiction to prosecute such an assault by an Indian within Indian country. See State U. Klindt, 1989 OK CR 75, I 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.)

2. 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 exists 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 Chickasaw Nation, McGirt’s reasoning is nevertheless controlling.

3. Two Questions Upon Remand

A. Beck’s Status as Indian

After McGirt was decided, this Court, on August 19, 2020, remanded this case to the District Court of Johnston County for an evidentiary hearing. We directed the District Court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on two issues: (a) Beck’s status as an Indian; and (b) whether the crime occurred in Indian Country, namely within the boundaries of the Chickasaw 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 October 1, 2020, the parties filed an Agreed Stipulation, agreeing that: (1) Beck has some Indian blood (49/64 degree Indian blood); (2) he was a recognized citizen of the Chickasaw Nation on the date of the charged offenses; (3) the Chickasaw Nation is a federally recognized tribe; and (4) the charged crimes occurred within the historical boundaries of the Chickasaw Nation.

On October 15, 2020, the parties appeared before the Honorable Wallace Coppedge for the scheduled evidentiary hearing. The district court acknowledged receipt of the parties’ stipulation, granted the Chickasaw Nation’s motion to enter as amicus curiae, and accepted the amicus brief filed on behalf of the tribe. The district court heard brief argument and the State agreed the joint stipulation resolved the factual question of Beck’s Indian status. Judge Coppedge correctly concluded in his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, issued November 16, 2020, that on the date of the charged crimes, Beck was an Indian for purposes of federal law.

B. Whether Crimes Were Committed in Indian Country

As to the second question on remand, whether the crimes were committed in Indian country, the stipulation of the parties was less dispositive. They acknowledged only that the charged crimes occurred within the historical geographic area of the Chickasaw Nation as designated by various treaties. At the evidentiary hearing, the State took no position on whether Congress established a reservation for the Chickasaw Nation or whether Congress ever erased those boundaries and disestablished the reservation. The parties admitted, as a joint exhibit, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from Bosse U. State filed in McClain County District Court, concluding Congress established a reservation for the Chickasaws and never erased its boundaries. Based on the parties’ stipulation and materials submitted at the evidentiary hearing, Judge Coppedge ruled the charged crimes against Beck occurred within the boundaries of the Chickasaw Nation and that Congress never disestablished the Chickasaw Nation Reservation. We agree and SO held in Bosse U. State, 2021 OK CR 3, P.3d. In Bosse, we reviewed the rulings of the McClain County District Court that served, in part, as the basis for the district court’s ruling in Beck’s case. Id., 2021 OK CR 3, II 8-12. We considered the applicable treaties cited by the McClain County District Court and agreed that Congress established a reservation for the Chickasaw Nation. Id. We further agreed that Congress had never erased those reservation boundaries, and, under the analysis in McGirt, the Chickasaw Nation Reservation remains intact and is Indian country. Id. Our holding in Bosse requires a finding that for purposes of federal criminal law, the land upon which the parties agree Beck committed these crimes is within the Chickasaw Nation Reservation and is Indian country. Under the analysis in McGirt, we hold the District Court of Johnston County did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Beck. Accordingly, we grant Proposition 7.

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.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1431
2. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 646(A)(2)
3. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645
4. 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) (2013)
5. 18 U.S.C. § 1152 (1948)
6. Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, P.3d
7. McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. , 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1431 - First Degree Burglary
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 646(A)(2) - Aggravated Assault and Battery
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645 - Assault with a Dangerous Weapon

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) - Major Crimes Act
• 18 U.S.C. § 1152 - Other Offenses

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• State v. Klindt, 1989 OK CR 75, I 3, 782 P.2d 401, 403
• 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)