Jurisdictional Issues Archives

F-2020-208

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 1, 2021
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2020-208, Ryan Cortland Johnson appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to vacate the judgment and sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Ryan was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison, meaning he would have to serve 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. He argued that the state court did not have the right to try him based on a Supreme Court decision from 2020 called McGirt v. Oklahoma. In this case, it was determined that certain crimes committed by members of federally recognized tribes on tribal land could not be prosecuted in state courts. Ryan Johnson claimed he was a member of the Chickasaw Nation and that the murder happened on Creek Nation tribal land, which is considered a reservation. The court allowed him to challenge its jurisdiction. The case was sent back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing, but the parties involved agreed on certain facts, which meant a hearing was not necessary. They confirmed that Ryan is a member of the Chickasaw Nation and that the crime took place on land owned by the Creek Nation. After reviewing the facts, the district court found that Ryan is indeed an Indian under federal law and that the crime took place in the Creek Nation boundaries. Therefore, the state court did not have the authority to charge him with murder based on the findings in the McGirt case. Because of this ruling, the court granted Ryan's appeal, decided the state court had no jurisdiction, and instructed that the case be dismissed.

C-2016-40

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 9, 2017
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2016-40, Deandre Lashawn Henderson appealed his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm after a former conviction of a felony. In a published decision, the court decided to grant part of his appeal. The court affirmed the convictions for Counts 1 and 5, but reversed and vacated the judgments for Counts 2 through 4. One justice dissented. The case began when Henderson entered a negotiated Alford plea, which means he maintained his innocence but accepted the plea for the sake of a more favorable sentence. He was sentenced to twenty years for the assault counts and ten years for the possession count, all to be served concurrently, meaning at the same time. Later, Henderson wanted to withdraw his plea. He claimed that his plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily. He also said that he did not receive effective help from his lawyer and that the trial court should have appointed a different lawyer due to a conflict of interest. During the appeal, the court looked closely at whether Henderson's plea was made voluntarily and if the district court had the authority to accept it. The court found that Henderson's plea was indeed voluntary because he knew the charges and the consequences. His choice to accept the plea was motivated by a desire to reduce his overall prison time, especially given the evidence against him. However, the court agreed that Henderson's lawyer should have argued that some of the charges violated the double jeopardy clause, which means he shouldn't be punished multiple times for the same act. The court found that the counts for assault stemmed from the same event and that it was wrong to punish him multiple times for it. Therefore, while verifying his conviction for some counts, the court ruled that the counts of conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon were not valid as they violated his rights. This decision meant that Henderson would not have to serve time for those three convictions but would still be sentenced for the other charges. Overall, the court upheld some aspects of the conviction but also corrected parts that were not handled properly.