Donta Keith Davis v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2019-420

Filed: Mar. 18, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Donta Keith Davis

Summary

Donta Keith Davis appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. He was sentenced to life in prison for each crime, with the sentences to be served one after the other. The court found that the crimes happened on land that is part of the Muscogee Creek Reservation and that Davis is recognized as an Indian citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation. This means the state court did not have the right to prosecute him. The court decided to give him relief based on a previous Supreme Court ruling (McGirt v. Oklahoma) that stated the state has no authority to try certain cases that occur on Indian land. As a result, Davis’s convictions were overturned, and he will not face further prosecution in state court. There were different opinions among the judges, with some agreeing with the decision but expressing concerns about the implications of the ruling. Davis's conviction and sentence were VACATED, and the court instructed that the case should be dismissed.

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 impermissible voir dire that undermined his right to a fair trial
• did the State present evidence in violation of the discovery code
• did restrictions on the testimony of expert witnesses undermine his ability to present a defense
• did the trial court err by admitting testimony of two lay witnesses who did not witness the robbery
• did the trial court err in allowing the State to elicit irrelevant and prejudicial evidence
• did he receive effective assistance of trial counsel
• was the pretrial identification process impermissibly suggestive and unreliable
• did prosecutorial misconduct deny him a fair trial
• did the trial court err in denying his request to present alternate perpetrator evidence
• did his convictions for both robbery and assault violate 21 O.S.2011, § 11
• were his sentences excessive
• was there a jurisdictional defect in his prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and McGirt v. Oklahoma

Findings

• the trial court erred in denying Davis' claim of jurisdiction under McGirt v. Oklahoma
• the other claims raised by Davis are rendered moot due to the jurisdictional decision
• the judgment and sentence of the district court is vacated
• the matter is remanded with instructions to dismiss

F-2019-420

Mar. 18, 2021

Donta Keith Davis

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

ROWLAND, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant Donta Keith Davis appeals his Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2018-1994, for Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon (Count 1), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 801 and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (Count 2), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 645, both After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. The Honorable Kelly Greenough, District Judge, presided over Davis’s jury trial and sentenced him, in accordance with the jury’s verdict, to life imprisonment on each count. Judge Greenough ordered the counts to run consecutively.

Davis appeals raising the following issues: (1) whether impermissible voir dire undermined his right to a fair trial; (2) whether the State presented evidence in violation of the discovery code; (3) whether restrictions on the testimony of expert witnesses operated to undermine his ability to present a defense; (4) whether the trial court erred by admitting testimony of two lay witnesses who did not witness the robbery; (5) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to elicit irrelevant and prejudicial evidence; (6) whether he received effective assistance of trial counsel; (7) whether the pretrial identification process was impermissibly suggestive and unreliable; (8) whether prosecutorial misconduct denied him a fair trial; (9) whether the trial court erred in denying his request to present alternate perpetrator evidence; (10) whether his convictions for both robbery and assault violated 21 O.S.2011, § 11; and (11) whether his sentences are excessive.

In conjunction with his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Proposition 6, Davis filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.11(B), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2021). In this motion, he asserted that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a jurisdictional defect in his prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. , 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020). We find relief is required on Davis’s jurisdictional challenge in Proposition 6, rendering his other claims moot.

On October 9, 2020, this Court remanded this case to the District Court of Tulsa County for an evidentiary hearing. The District Court was directed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on two issues: (a) Davis’s status as an Indian; and (b) whether the crime occurred within the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek 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 November 5, 2020, the parties filed a written stipulation in the District Court of Tulsa County in which they agreed: (1) that Davis has some Indian blood; (2) that he was a registered citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation on the date of the charged offense; (3) that the Muscogee Creek Nation is a federally recognized tribe; and (4) that the charged crime occurred within the Muscogee Creek Reservation. The Honorable Tracy L. Priddy, District Judge, accepted the parties’ stipulation.

On November 12, 2020, the District Court filed its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The District Court found the facts recited above in accordance with the stipulation. The District Court concluded that Davis is an Indian under federal law and that the charged crimes occurred within the boundaries of the Muscogee Creek Reservation. The District Court’s findings are supported by the record. The ruling in McGirt governs this case and requires us to find the District Court of Tulsa County did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Davis. Accordingly, we grant relief on Proposition 6.

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.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 801
2. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645
3. 18 U.S.C. § 1153
4. McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. , 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020)
5. McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
6. Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3
7. Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4
8. Krafft v. State, No. F-2018-340 (Okl.Cr., Feb. 25, 2021)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 801 (2011) - Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 645 (2011) - Assault with a Dangerous Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 11 (2011) - Double Jeopardy
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.11(B) - Evidentiary Hearings
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - Mandate

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1153 - Major Crimes Act

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• McGirt v. Oklahoma, U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
• 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)