Ryder v. State

• Citation: 489 P.3d 528
• Decision Date: 29 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. PCD-2020-613,PCD-2020-613
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
• Parties: James Chandler RYDER, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.

489 P.3d 528

James Chandler RYDER, Petitioner,

v.The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. PCD-2020-613

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

FILED APRIL 29, 2021

OPINION GRANTING SECOND APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

LUMPKIN, JUDGE:¹

¶1 Petitioner James Chandler Ryder was convicted of two (2) counts of First Degree Murder (21 O.S.1991, § 701.7), Case No. CF-99-147, in the District Court of Pittsburg County. In Count I, Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In Count II, the jury found the existence of two (2) aggravating circumstances and recommended the punishment of death. The trial court sentenced accordingly. This Court affirmed the judgment and sentence in Ryder v. State, 2004 OK CR 2, 83 P.3d 856. Petitioner's first application for post-conviction relief was denied by this Court in Ryder v. State, (Okl.Cr. 2004) opinion not for publication, Case No. PCD-2002-257. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Ryder v. Oklahoma, 543 U.S. 886, 125 S.Ct. 215, 160 L.Ed.2d 146 (2004). On September 8, 2020, Petitioner filed this second and successive application for post-conviction relief.

¶2 Pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1089(D)(8) "if a subsequent application for post-conviction relief is filed after filing an original application, the Court of Criminal Appeals may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the subsequent application unless the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that the current claims and issues have not been and could not have been presented previously in a previously considered application filed under this section, because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable."

¶3 For purposes of the Capital Post-Conviction Procedure Act, a legal basis of a claim is unavailable if: (1) it was not recognized by or could not have been reasonably formulated from a final decision of the United States Supreme Court, a court of appeals of the United States, or a court of appellate jurisdiction of this state on or before that date; or (2) it is a new rule of constitutional law that was given retroactive effect by the United States Supreme Court or a court of appeals of the United States, or a court of appellate jurisdiction of this state on or before that date; or (2) it is a new rule of constitutional law that was given retroactive effect by the United States Supreme Court or a court of appellate jurisdiction of this state and had not been announced on or before that date. A factual basis of a claim is unavailable if the factual basis was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before that date. 22 O.S.2011, § 1089(D)(9).

¶4 In his sole proposition of error, Petitioner argues that pursuant to McGirt v. Oklahoma, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 2452, 207 L.Ed.2d 985 (2020), the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute, convict, and sentence him for the murders of Daisy and Sam Hallum, citizens of the Choctaw nation when such crimes occurred within the boundaries of the Choctaw Reservation.

¶5 Under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, and considering the pleadings before this Court, we find Petitioner's claim is properly before this Court as the claim could not have been previously presented because the legal basis for the claim was unavailable. Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, 484 P.3d 286. ("McGirt provides a previously unavailable legal basis for [the jurisdictional] claim. Subject-matter jurisdiction may—indeed, must—be raised at any time. No procedural bar applies, and this issue is properly before us. 22 O.S.2011, §§ 1089(D)(8)(a), 1089(D)(9)(a).") Id., at ¶ 22, 484 P.3d 286.²

¶6 Petitioner's claim raises two separate questions: (a) the Indian status of the victims, and (b) whether the crime occurred in Indian Country. These issues require fact-finding. We therefore remanded this case to the District Court of Pittsburg County for an evidentiary hearing.

¶7 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 Petitioner's presentation of prima facie evidence as to the legal status of the victims as Indian and as to the location of the crime in Indian Country, the burden shifts to the State to prove it has subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court was ordered to determine whether the victims had some Indian blood and were recognized as Indian by a tribe or the federal government. The District Court was also directed to determine whether the crime occurred in Indian Country. The District Court was directed to follow the analysis set out in McGirt to determine (1) whether Congress established a reservation for the Choctaw Nation, and (2) if so, whether Congress specifically erased those boundaries and disestablished the reservation. In so doing, the District Court was ordered to consider any evidence the parties provided, including but not limited to treaties, statutes, maps, and/or testimony.

¶8 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 facts and conclusions of law with this Court.

¶9 An evidentiary hearing was timely held before the Honorable Tim Mills, Associate District Judge, and a Court Order with Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in Accordance with Order Remanding for Evidentiary Hearing issued September 25, 2020 was timely filed with this Court. The record indicates that appearing before the District Court were attorneys from the offices of the Attorney General of Oklahoma, the Pittsburg County District Attorney, Federal Public Defender, and counsel for the Choctaw Nation.

¶10 In its Order to this Court, the District Court stated in pertinent part that the parties had entered into a stipulation that each of the victims, Daisy and Sam Hallum, "had 1/16th Indian blood quantum and was enrolled as a Choctaw Nation citizen at the time of the crimes." The District Court noted that "[t]he Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma/CDIB Tribal Membership certifications for Daisy and Sam Hallum" were attached to the stipulation and that the parties agree they should be admitted into the record of the case.

¶11 The District Court found, based upon treaties and documents provided to the court, that a reservation was established by the federal government for the Choctaw Nation. The District Court further found "[n]o evidence was presented to show that Congress erased or disestablished the boundaries of the Choctaw Nation Reservation or that the State of Oklahoma has jurisdiction in this matter ... Therefore, the crimes occurred in Indian Country."

¶12 Both Petitioner and the State were given the opportunity to file response briefs addressing issues from the evidentiary hearing.³ Petitioner argues in part that this Court should affirm the District Court's factual findings under an abuse of discretion standard. See Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 109, 12 P.3d 20, 48 ("we afford the trial court's findings on factual issues great deference and will review its findings applying a deferential abuse of discretion standard"). In addition to referencing the stipulations as to the victims' Indian status and the location of the crime as Indian country, Petitioner presents argument and authority, which was presented to the District Court, supporting the District Court's conclusion that the Choctaw reservation has not been disestablished. Petitioner asserts this Court should conclude that the State lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his case.

¶13 Petitioner also responds to an argument first presented by the State at the evidentiary hearing that under the General Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1152), the State and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed by a non-Indian defendant against an Indian victim. The State raised the argument with the intent to preserve the argument for appeal. Defense counsel objected to the preservation of the argument on grounds that the issue was not a part of this Court's remand order for evidentiary hearing. The issue of concurrent jurisdiction formed no part of the trial court's order.

¶14 In his response brief, Petitioner argues: 1) the issue of concurrent jurisdiction is not properly before this Court as the issue is beyond the scope of the supplemental briefing; 2) the issue is not properly before this Court as it is beyond the scope of this Court's order on evidentiary hearing; and 3) the issue of concurrent jurisdiction between the State and federal governments fails on the merits.

¶15 We find Petitioner has read our Order remanding for an evidentiary hearing too narrowly. Our Order allowed the parties to address "issues pertinent to the evidentiary hearing" in the supplemental briefs. Pursuant to our Order, "[u]pon the Appellant's presentation of prima facie evidence as to the victim'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 subject matter jurisdiction." Here, the District Court found that the victims in this case were Indians and that the crimes occurred in Indian Country. The State now has the burden of showing it has subject matter jurisdiction. An argument of concurrent jurisdiction is relevant in potentially meeting that burden. As the State raised the issue of concurrent jurisdiction at the evidentiary hearing, although the issue seemingly played no part in the trial court's ruling, we find the issue is now properly before this Court for our consideration.

¶16 The State's argument hinges on its reading...