Joshua Lee Purdom v State Of Oklahoma

F-2019-854

Filed: Sep. 23, 2021

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Joshua Lee Purdom

Summary

Joshua Lee Purdom appealed his conviction for several serious crimes, including Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon, Kidnapping, Sodomy, and Rape. His conviction and sentence totaled forty-four years in prison. In this case, the court had to decide if the State of Oklahoma had the right to prosecute Purdom, since the victim was recognized as an Indian and the crimes happened on Indian land known as the Creek Reservation. Purdom argued that because of federal law, Oklahoma didn't have the right to handle his case. After looking into the facts, the court agreed that the victim was an Indian and the crimes took place in Indian Country. This meant only federal authorities could prosecute. In the end, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Purdom's convictions and sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss it. There was dissent from one judge who expressed concerns about the implications of the decision for the legal system in Oklahoma.

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 valid jurisdictional claim based on the Indian status of the victim?
• Did the charged crimes occur in Indian Country, specifically within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation?
• Was the State of Oklahoma correct in asserting concurrent jurisdiction over the crimes committed against an Indian victim in Indian Country?
• Was the District Court's finding of facts and conclusions of law supported by the evidence presented during the remanded proceedings?
• Did federal law preempt state jurisdiction in this case based on the Supreme Court's ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma?

Findings

• the court erred in asserting state jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian Country
• the evidence was sufficient to establish the victim's Indian status and the occurrence of crimes in Indian Country
• the prosecution lacked jurisdiction, necessitating a reversal and dismissal of the case
• the state's request for a stay was rendered moot

F-2019-854

Sep. 23, 2021

Joshua Lee Purdom

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

OPINION

HUDSON, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE: Appellant, Joshua Lee Purdom, was convicted at a jury trial of Counts 1, 3 and 4: Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652; Count 2: Kidnapping, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 741; Count 5: Sodomy By Force or Fear, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2017, § 888; Count 6: Rape in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2017, § 1114; and Count 7: Feloniously Pointing a Firearm, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2017, § 1289.16, in the District Court of Hughes County, Case No. CF-2018-93. The jury recommended sentences of seven years imprisonment each on Counts 1, 3, 4 and 7; five years imprisonment on Count 2; twelve years imprisonment on Count 5; and eighteen years imprisonment on Count 6. The Honorable Timothy Olsen, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdicts. Judge Olsen ordered Counts 1-4 to run concurrently but consecutively with Counts 5-7, resulting in a total of forty-four years imprisonment. This appeal followed.

Appellant raises three propositions of error in his brief in chief filed with this Court on May 21, 2020. The State’s response brief was thereafter filed on August 13, 2020. On September 24, 2020, Appellant filed with this Court a Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction or, Alternatively, Request For An Evidentiary Hearing. Appellant asserts in the motion that the victim, Melinda Purdom, is Indian; the charged crimes occurred within the Creek Reservation; and thus, under federal law, the District Court had no jurisdiction over this case. Appellant cites McGirt U. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151-1153 in support of this proposition. Appellant also cites Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, I 8, 152 P.3d 244, 248, for the proposition that jurisdiction is never waived and can be raised at any time.

In McGirt U. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court held that the Creek Reservation in eastern Oklahoma was never disestablished by Congress and, thus, constitutes Indian Country for purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction. The parties in the present case have stipulated during remanded proceedings before the District Court that the victim was Indian and the crimes in this case occurred on the Creek Reservation. In today’s decision, we uphold the District Court’s adoption of these stipulations and reject the State of Oklahoma’s claim that it has concurrent jurisdiction along with the United States to prosecute crimes committed on the Creek Reservation by non-Indian defendants against Indian victims. We therefore reverse and remand Appellant’s convictions with instructions to dismiss.

I. Appellant’s Jurisdictional Claim.

Pursuant to McGirt, Appellant’s claim raises two separate questions: (a) the Indian status of the victim, Melinda Purdom, and (b) whether the crimes occurred in Indian Country, namely within the boundaries of the Creek Reservation. On January 20, 2021, we remanded this case to the District Court for an evidentiary hearing with instructions to determine whether the victim had some Indian blood and was 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. Finally, the District Court was ordered to file written findings of fact and conclusions of law with this Court.

II. The Remanded Proceedings.

A hearing was held in this case on March 9, 2021, before the Honorable Timothy Olsen, District Judge. An order containing the District Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law from that hearing was timely filed with this Court along with a transcript of the hearing. The record shows the parties stipulated that the victim has 1/8 degree Indian blood of the Cherokee Nation Tribe; that the victim was an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation at the time of the crime; and that the charged crimes in this case occurred on the Creek Reservation. In its written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the District Court accepted and found the facts as stipulated by the parties. On these facts, the District Court concluded that the victim was an Indian for purposes of federal law based on the percentage of Indian blood. The District Court further found the victim was recognized as an Indian either by the federal government or a tribe and that the Creek Reservation is Indian Country for purposes of federal law.

III. Post-Remand Supplemental Briefs.

Both Appellant and the State filed with this Court supplemental briefs after remand. In its brief, the State urges in light of the stipulations that it has concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government over the charged crimes in this case. Specifically, the State claims it has concurrent jurisdiction over all crimes committed by non-Indians against Indian victims in Indian Country. Alternatively, the State requests 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 convictions for thirty days so that the appropriate authorities can review his case, determine whether it is appropriate to file charges and take custody of Appellant.

In his brief, Appellant opposes the State’s concurrent jurisdiction theory. Appellant argues this claim substantively lacks merit. Appellant urges that the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over Appellant’s crimes because no federal law authorizes state jurisdiction in this case.

IV. Analysis.

We find that under the law and evidence relief is warranted. The District Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are fully supported by the stipulations jointly made by the parties at the remanded hearing. Appellant has thus met his burden of establishing the victim’s status as an Indian, having 1/8 degree Cherokee blood and being a member of the Cherokee Nation Tribe at the time of the crime. Appellant has also met his burden of proving that the crimes in this case occurred on the Creek Reservation and, thus, occurred in Indian Country for purposes of federal law. The State of Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant in this matter.

This Court recently rejected the State’s concurrent jurisdiction argument in Roth v. State, and we apply that holding here. To summarize, federal law broadly preempts state criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by, or against, Indians in Indian Country. Title 18 U.S.C. § 1152, the Indian Country Crimes Act, specifically governs Appellant’s case. Under Section 1152, the United States has jurisdiction in Indian Country over crimes that non-Indians commit against Indians. McGirt, 140 S. Ct. at 2479; Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 714. Section 1152 extends the general criminal laws of federal maritime and enclave jurisdiction to Indian country, except for those offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian. Negonsott U. Samuels.

Historically, based on principles of federal preemption and Indian sovereignty, criminal offenses by or against Indians have been subject only to federal or tribal laws, except where Congress in the exercise of its plenary and exclusive power over Indian affairs has expressly provided that State laws shall apply. Congress has authorized States to assume criminal jurisdiction over Indian Country in limited circumstances. Upon cession of such jurisdiction to a state, federal law no longer preempts the state’s exercise of its inherent police power over all persons within its borders, and the state is automatically vested with jurisdiction in the absence of state law to the contrary.

The State of Oklahoma, however, has never asserted its right under existing federal law to assume jurisdiction over any portion of Indian Country within its borders. McGirt specifically held that federal law thus applied in Oklahoma according to its usual terms because the State had never complied with the requirements to assume jurisdiction over the Creek Reservation and Congress had never expressly conferred jurisdiction on Oklahoma. Pursuant to McGirt, the State therefore has no jurisdiction as part of its inherent police power over the crimes committed in this case. Under federal law, jurisdiction over Appellant’s crimes in the present case rest exclusively with the federal government. We cannot ignore, or attempt to bypass, any aspect of McGirt based on the State’s simple assertion of concurrent jurisdiction.

It is the Supreme Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents, not ours. Adoption of the State’s novel theory of concurrent jurisdiction is a political matter which may be addressed by Congress, not this Court. We have no choice but to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction under the Supremacy Clause, and based upon the foregoing, 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 Hughes County with instructions to dismiss the case. This resolution renders moot the propositions of error raised in Appellant’s brief in chief.

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.

APPEARANCES AT HEARING

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

CHAD JOHNSON
OKLA. INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM
P.O. BOX 926
NORMAN, OK 73070
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

PAUL B. SMITH
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SEMINOLE COUNTY
P.O. BOX 350
HOLDENVILLE, OK 74848
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

MIKE HUNTER
OKLA. ATTORNEY GENERAL
ASHLEY L. WILLIS
ASST. ATTY. GENERAL
313 N.E. 21ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

OPINION BY: HUDSON, V.P.J.
ROWLAND, P.J.: CONCUR
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
LEWIS, J.: SPECIALLY CONCUR

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.2011, § 652
2. 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 741
3. 21 O.S.Supp.2017, § 888
4. 21 O.S.Supp.2017, § 1114
5. 21 O.S.Supp.2017, § 1289.16
6. McGirt U. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
7. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151-1153
8. Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, "I 8, 152 P.3d 244, 248
9. 18 U.S.C. § 1151
10. McGirt, supra.
11. 22 O.S.2011, § 846
12. Parker v. State, 2021 OK CR 17, I 36, _P.3d__
13. Roth v. State, 2021 OK CR 27, _P.3d_
14. Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, II 23-28, 484 P.3d 286, 294-95
15. Ryder v. State, 2021 OK CR 11, IT 13-28, 489 P.3d 528
16. State ex rel. Matloff v. Wallace, 2021 OK CR 21, _P.3d_
17. Ryder v. State, 2021 OK CR 25, __P.3d_
18. Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 23, _P.3d_
19. 18 U.S.C. § 1152
20. Negonsott U. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99, 102 (1993)
21. United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 668-69 (10th Cir. 1999)
22. Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 470-71 (1979)
23. McGirt, 140 S. Ct. at 2478
24. Bosse v. Oklahoma, 137 S. Ct. 1, 2 (2016)
25. 18 U.S.C. § 1152

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652 (2011) - Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 741 (2012) - Kidnapping
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 888 (2017) - Sodomy By Force or Fear
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1114 (2017) - Rape in the First Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1289.16 (2017) - Feloniously Pointing a Firearm
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 846 (2011) - Jurisdiction for Certain Crimes

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1151 - Indian Country defined
• 18 U.S.C. § 1152 - Indian Country Crimes Act
• 18 U.S.C. § 1153 - Offenses committed within Indian country

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)
• Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51, I 8, 152 P.3d 244, 248
• Parker v. State, 2021 OK CR 17, I 36, _P.3d__
• Roth v. State, 2021 OK CR 27, _P.3d_
• Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, II 23-28, 484 P.3d 286, 294-95
• Ryder v. State, 2021 OK CR 11, IT 13-28, 489 P.3d 528
• State ex rel. Matloff v. Wallace, 2021 OK CR 21, _P.3d_
• McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. at 2479
• Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711, 714 & n. 10 (1946)
• Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99, 102 (1993)
• United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 668-69 (10th Cir. 1999)
• Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 470-71 (1979)
• Burch, 169 F.3d at 671