Spears v. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians

• Decision Date: 30 March 2005
• Docket Number: No. 03-CV-2434(JMR)(JSM).,03-CV-2434(JMR)(JSM).
• Parties: Rodney D. SPEARS, Sr., v. RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

Page 1176

363 F.Supp.2d 1176

Rodney D. SPEARS, Sr., v. RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS.

No. 03-CV-2434(JMR)(JSM).

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

March 30, 2005.

Katherine Menendez, Federal Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for Rodney Dean Spears, Sr.

Bridgid E. Dowdal, Dowdal & Dowdal, White Bear Lake, MN, Joseph M. Plumer, Plumer Law Office, Bemidji, MN, for Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians.

ORDER

ROSENBAUM, Chief Judge.

Rodney Spears petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. This matter was originally heard by a United States Magistrate Judge on May 25, 2004, who recommended denying the petition. Mr. Spears timely objected to the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(c)(2). After a de novo review, the Court declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation. The petition is hereby granted.

I. Factual Background

In the early morning hours of April 1, 2000, petitioner — intoxicated and lacking a valid driver's license — drove his car within the Red Lake Indian Reservation. Tragically, he struck and killed a person lying on the road. He neither stopped, notified police, nor rendered assistance. Instead, he drove to his sister's house and did nothing.

For these acts, he was criminally charged in both federal and tribal court.¹ He pleaded guilty to a federal charge of involuntary manslaughter, receiving a 14-month sentence. After his release, he faced six separate charges in Red Lake Tribal Court: (1) negligent homicide; (2) driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI"); (3) failing to take a blood, breath, or urine test; (4) failing to stop at the scene of a traffic accident; (5) driving without a license; and (6) a liquor violation.² Each charge arose from the April 1, 2000, incident.

Petitioner was represented by counsel and pleaded guilty to all six charges. He was sentenced to 12 months for the negligent homicide, and 6 months apiece for the DUI, sobriety test, and failure to stop violations.³ As the sentences were imposed to run consecutively, the net result was a 30-month sentence. He was also fined a total of $200 for driving without a license and the liquor violation.

After exhausting his tribal appeals, petitioner filed this case⁴ claiming his sentence violates the Indian Civil Rights Act ("ICRA"), which limits tribal prison sentences to a 12-month maximum "for conviction of any one offense." While he admits his actions violated several of the Tribal Code's provisions, he claims he committed only "one offense": unlawful driving resulting in the death of another person.

Respondent, Red Lake, contends that petitioner's sentence complies with the ICRA because his driving behavior constituted multiple distinct offenses. First, petitioner drove drunk and without a license, thus committing the DUI and the license violations; second, he struck and killed a man lying in the road, committing negligent homicide; third, he fled, resulting in the failure to stop violation; and finally, he refused to submit to the required sobriety test.⁵

II. Discussion

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall be available to any person, in a court of the United States, to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian Tribe." 25 U.S.C. § 1303. The writ provides a remedy to a person who is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner claims his custody violates the ICRA, a law of the United States. His claim is therefore ripe for review.

It is axiomatic that the interpretation of a statutory phrase such as "any one offense" begins with the statute's own language. Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U.S. 205, 210, 99 S.Ct. 1067, 59 L.Ed.2d 261 (1979). "Where the language of a statute `is unambiguous, the statute should be enforced as written unless there is clear legislative intent to the contrary.'" United States v. Milk, 281 F.3d 762, 766 (8th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. McIntosh, 236 F.3d 968, 972 (8th Cir.2001)). "If, on the other hand, the language of a statute is ambiguous," the Court must determine Congress's intent in order to "effectuate the underlying purposes of the law." United States v. McAllister, 225 F.3d 982, 986 (8th Cir.2000).

a. Ambiguity

The words of the ICRA are explicit: an "Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall ... in no event impose for conviction of any one offense any penalty or punishment greater than imprisonment for a term of one year [or] a fine of $5,000, or both." 25 U.S.C. § 1302(7).

But the phrase "any one offense" is ambiguous. Indeed, similar language has given rise to controversy and disagreement in other contexts. The Constitution's Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy provision, for example, prohibits multiple prosecutions "for the same offence." U.S. Const. Amend. V. This phrase has been subject to at least two reasonable interpretations: it could bar consecutive prosecutions for offenses arising out of the "same evidence," or it could bar consecutive prosecutions for offenses arising out of the "same transaction." See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 449-54, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring) (arguing for the "same transaction" test).⁶

A similar issue arises in the context of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, where no jury is required. That right does not attach to "petty offense" prosecutions, and "[a]n offense carrying a maximum prison term of six months or less is presumed petty." Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 326, 116 S.Ct. 2163, 135 L.Ed.2d 590 (1996). The conflict occurs when a person is charged with several petty offenses, where consecutive six-month sentences could result in years of imprisonment without any right to a jury. This presents the question whether the several petty offenses should be considered a single serious offense.

The Supreme Court first addressed this question in Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2687, 41 L.Ed.2d 912 (1974). There, two defendants each faced multiple counts of criminal contempt for which they were tried and convicted without a jury. One defendant was sentenced to 39 months' imprisonment, consisting of six consecutive six-month terms followed by a three-month term; the other received a 32-month sentence, consisting of five six-month terms plus a two-month term. Id. at 509-10, 94 S.Ct. 2687. The Court held the separate acts of contempt to be in effect a single serious offense because they "arose from a single trial, were charged by a single judge, and were tried in a single proceeding." Id. at 517, 94 S.Ct. 2687.⁷ In other words, they formed a single criminal transaction.

The Court recognizes that Fifth and Sixth Amendment precedents do not decide this case — this case concerns the language of the ICRA.⁸ But the aforementioned cases illustrate the ambiguous meaning of "any one offense." It could mean either "any discrete violation of the Tribal Code" or "any prosecution arising from a single criminal transaction or episode." As the phrase is ambiguous, the Court must "consider the purpose, the subject matter and the condition of affairs which led to its enactment," and construe it "to effectuate the underlying purposes of the law." McAllister, 225 F.3d at 986 (internal quotation omitted).

b. Congressional Intent

1. ICRA History

The ICRA was "the fruit of six years' labor" by Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina, who was probably "the only member of the Senate who fully understood it." Donald L. Burnett, Jr., An Historical Analysis of the 1968 "Indian Civil Rights" Act, 9 Harv. J. on Legis. 557, 603 (1972). A former county judge and state supreme court justice, Senator Ervin apparently wanted to extend "the protection of constitutional rights" and civil liberties to Native Americans on Indian Reservations. See id. at 575. Accordingly, the Senator's original bill broadly "provided that any tribe exercising its powers of self-government would be subject to the same limitations and restraints as imposed upon the federal government by the Constitution."⁹ Id. at 589; see Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 62 n. 12, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978).

Congress, however, found that many tribes were not "psychologically or financially prepared" to extend every constitutional right to their members. See Burnett, 9 Harv. J. on Legis at 589. These concerns led to a substitute bill, which protected only a set of specific rights. Id. at 590. One right not afforded was publicly funded counsel in tribal court. This was deemed too great a financial burden for already impoverished tribes. Id. at 590-91. Thus, the enacted version of the ICRA limited tribal court sentences to six months, with no guarantee of publicly provided counsel. See P.L. 90-284 § 202, 82 Stat. 77-78 (April 11, 1968).

In 1986, the ICRA was amended to "enhance the ability of tribal governments to prevent and penalize the traffic of illegal narcotics." P.L. 99-570 § 4217, 100 Stat. 3207-146 (Oct. 27, 1986). The amendment increased the maximum sentence to one year. Id. There have been no other amendments that impact this case.

2. Underlying Purposes

When the ICRA was passed, the Supreme Court had not yet definitively established a constitutional right to state-provided counsel in non-felony cases. See Beck v. Winters, 407 F.2d 125, 127-28 (8th Cir.1969) ("[T]he Supreme Court of the United States has not expressly extended the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel to misdemeanor cases."); cf. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (establishing the right in felony cases). States, at that time, were not constitutionally required to provide counsel for indigent defendants exposed to sentences of six months or less. See Winters v. Beck, 239 Ark. 1151, 397 S.W.2d 364, cert. denied, 385 U.S. 907, 87 S.Ct. 207, 17 L.Ed.2d 137 (1966) (reiterating that "no duty is imposed upon the trial court to appoint couns...