State v. Daly
| Decision Date | 24 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 16719,16719 |
| Citation | 454 N.W.2d 342 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John Jerald DALY, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
John P. Guhin, Deputy Atty. Gen., Roger A. Tellinghuisen, Atty. Gen. (on brief), Pierre, for plaintiff and appellant.
Stanley E. Whiting of Whiting Law Office, Winner, for defendant and appellee.
Applying the doctrine of comity, we dismiss this appeal. In so doing, we conclude that the federal court has determined that appellee is an Indian for criminal jurisdictional purposes.
Defendant John Jerald Daly was originally charged in state court with three counts of second-degree burglary, in violation of SDCL 22-32-3. The offenses were alleged to have been committed in Todd County, South Dakota, within the boundaries of the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Reservation. He originally entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. Later, pursuant to a plea agreement, Daly changed his plea on one of the counts to guilty. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation. After completion of the presentence investigation, but prior to sentencing, the trial court heard Daly's motion to dismiss which was grounded on his claim that the state court lacked jurisdiction because he is an Indian.
Evidence at the hearing on the motion to dismiss discloses that Daly is an enrolled member of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. State, although not disputing that Daly is a Lumbee Indian, asserts that it still has jurisdiction. State argues that Congress has specifically directed that "none of the statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall be applicable to the Lumbee Indians." 70 Stat. 254; An Act Relating to the Lumbee Indians of North Carolina, approved June 7, 1956. The trial court concluded that irrespective of the foregoing congressional act, Daly is an "Indian" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1153 and dismissed the criminal charges. On June 15, 1989, State appealed the order of dismissal to this court.
Later, Daly appeared before the United States District Court for the Central Division of South Dakota and pleaded guilty to one of the same burglaries which was involved in the state charges. By a judgment dated October 24, 1989, United States District Judge Donald J. Porter sentenced Daly to imprisonment for a term of forty-one months. He is currently incarcerated in some federal penal institution.
All of the arguments to this court have centered around the issue of whether a Lumbee Indian is an "Indian" as that term is contemplated by 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1153. 1 It was only through a passing comment and appendix to appellee's brief that we became aware of the federal prosecution for the same offense. At oral argument, State's counsel suggested that the federal judgment was not dispositive of the issue and urged and invited us to make a determination on the merits. For reasons which are stated below, we respectfully decline.
It is settled law that major crimes committed by an Indian within Indian country are matters of exclusive federal jurisdiction and states have no power over those crimes. See, e.g., State v. Winckler, 260 N.W.2d 356 (S.D.1977), and Application of DeMarrias, 77 S.D. 294, 91 N.W.2d 480 (1958). It is not disputed that this offense was committed in Indian country. The only issue is whether Daly is an "Indian" as contemplated by 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1153.
Generally, the federal courts are the ultimate decision maker as to whether the federal, state or tribal courts have jurisdiction in a particular Indian law case. United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 97 S.Ct. 1395, 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977).
It is our belief that the federal court has, by the United States District Court assuming jurisdiction over defendant in accepting his plea and imposing judgment, assumed jurisdiction in this case. The plea of guilty admits all the elements of the criminal charge, and waives all challenges to prosecution either by direct appeal or by collateral attack, except challenges to the court's jurisdiction. See O'Leary v. United States, 856 F.2d 1142 (8th Cir.1988); Mack v. United States, 853 F.2d 585 (8th Cir.1988). However, Daly's guilty plea admits even those facts which form a predicate for federal jurisdiction, i.e., that he is an Indian. United States v. Mathews, 833 F.2d 161 (9th Cir.1987).
Although a good argument may be made that the issues are not moot (for example, he may later challenge jurisdiction in a federal habeas corpus proceeding), we may, should and do hereby recognize the federal determination based on the doctrine of comity. 2 In Mexican v. Circle Bear, 370 N.W.2d 737 (S.D.1985), we adopted the following conditions precedent to the application of the doctrine of comity:
(1) The foreign court actually had jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties;
(2) The decree was not obtained fraudulently;
(3) The decree was rendered by a system of law reasonably assuring the requisites of an impartial administration of justice--due notice and a hearing; and
(4) The judgment did not contravene the public policy of the jurisdiction in which it is relied upon.
We conclude that the federal court's criminal sentencing of Daly meets all of the foregoing conditions.
We see nothing to be gained by reaching the jurisdictional issues raised by the State. Daly has admitted his criminal conduct and is currently serving time in prison for his activity. The federal court has assumed jurisdiction and we are recognizing that action under the doctrine of comity. No reasonable, useful purposes are apparent which require or compel us to expend further judicial resources in attempting to resolve a jurisdictional dispute which has been or must be ultimately resolved in the federal courts.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Perank
...ultimate decision maker as to whether federal, state or tribal courts have jurisdiction in a particular Indian law case." State v. Daly, 454 N.W.2d 342, 344 (S.D.1990). The primacy of federal authority in this area stems from at least three sources: the Constitution, the federal statute tha......
-
State v. Chavez
...and a hearing; and 4. The judgment did not contravene the public policy of the jurisdiction in which it is relied upon. State v. Daly, 454 N.W.2d 342, 344 (S.D. 1990). [¶ 42.] Chavez is not entitled to comity under condition one because the State was not subject to the jurisdiction of the f......
-
SDDS, Inc. v. State
...and a hearing; and (4) The judgment did not contravene the public policy of the jurisdiction in which it is relied upon. State v. Daly, 454 N.W.2d 342, 344 (S.D.1990)(recognizing a federal court's determination based on comity). The federal courts certainly had jurisdiction over this federa......
-
State v. St. Cloud
...in footnote three of the majority opinion. This appeal can also be decided in favor of the State on the doctrine of comity. In State v. Daly, 454 N.W.2d at 345, Justice Sabers (present author of this opinion) dissented. I still recognize Daly as good law and not eroded by footnote three of ......