State v. Stanton, No. 19-0177

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: APPEL, Justice.
• Citation: 933 N.W.2d 244
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellant, v. Jessica Rae STANTON, Appellee.
• Decision Date: 13 September 2019
• Docket Number: No. 19-0177

933 N.W.2d 244

STATE of Iowa, Appellant,
v.
Jessica Rae STANTON, Appellee.

No. 19-0177

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed September 13, 2019

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Aaron Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, and Brent D. Heeren, County Attorney, for appellant.

John G. Daufeldt of Daufeldt Law Firm, Conroy, for appellee.

Peter E. Deegan Jr., United States Attorney, Lisa C. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, and Ann O’Connell Adams, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, for amicus curiae United States.

Joshua A. Canterbury, Assistant Attorney General, and Christopher M. Nydle, Lead Prosecutor, for amicus curiae Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa.

APPEL, Justice.

933 N.W.2d 246

In this case, an officer of the Meskwaki Nation Police Department filed two cases in Iowa District Court for Tama County alleging that Jessica Rae Stanton committed the misdemeanor crimes of trespass, possession of drug paraphernalia, and violation of a no-contact order while on the Meskwaki Settlement.

Upon review of the complaints, a magistrate concluded that recent federal legislation removed state jurisdiction for crimes committed on the Settlement. As a result, the magistrate dismissed the three pending misdemeanor charges and assessed costs against the Meskwaki Nation. The magistrate further advised that the Tama County Sheriff should consult with the county attorney to determine whether prisoners such as the defendant should even be received and retained in custody by the Tama County Sheriff. The district court further stated that tribal police officers should be instructed by tribal judicial officers to cease and desist from charging persons with violations of the Iowa Code as such charges "will only serve to clog state courts and result in the imposition of court costs upon the Meskwaki Tribe for cases which must be dismissed."

We granted the State’s application for discretionary review and expedited consideration of the matter in light of the importance of the issues pending in the case. For the reasons expressed below, we reverse the dismissal of the charges, vacate the remaining portions of the order of the district court, and remand the case to the district court.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On January 1, 2019, the Meskwaki police filed complaints alleging that Stanton committed the crime of trespass in violation of Iowa Code section 716.8(1) (2018), possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Iowa Code section 124.414(2), and violation of a no-contact order in violation of Iowa Code section 664A.7. In all three complaints, the defendant’s race, gender, height, and weight were identified.

The complaint alleging possession of drug paraphernalia stated that "Jessica had a glass pipe that was clear/white in color. [T]he glass pipe had drug residue in it." The location of the offense was listed as 1504 305th Street in Tama, Iowa.

The complaint alleging violation of a no-contact order stated that "Jessica and the protected party Joshua arrived at the casino together. They drove to the casino together." As with the complaint for possession of drug paraphernalia, the location of the offense was listed as 1504 305th Street in Tama, Iowa.

The complaint for trespass simply stated that the violation is "Trespass 1st offense." The complaint does not provide further details about the alleged offense. For example, it does not state the owner of the allegedly trespassed property or its location.

The magistrate signed an order sua sponte on the same day the charges were filed. The order was filed the following day. The magistrate noted that the defendant was in custody and the complaints

933 N.W.2d 247

were issued by a Meskwaki police officer "for conduct which allegedly took place on the Meskwaki Settlement." The magistrate also stated that "[f]ederal legislation was recently enacted which removed state jurisdiction for crimes committed on the Settlement." As a result, the magistrate reasoned that lack of state jurisdiction "prohibits tribal police officers, as well as Iowa peace officers, from initiating state criminal charges for conduct on the Settlement regardless of the race or ethnic background of any potential Defendant." Additionally, the magistrate declared that "[a]ny charges for conduct upon the Meskwaki Settlement can be pursued in tribal court or federal court." On this reasoning, the magistrate dismissed the charges.

The magistrate further stated that "[t]he Tama County Sheriff should consult with the County Attorney to determine whether prisoners such as this Defendant should even be received and retained in custody by the Tama County Sheriff." Further, the magistrate stated,

Tribal police officers should be instructed by tribal judicial officers to cease and desist from charging persons with violations of the Code of Iowa for the reasons that it will only serve to clog state courts and result in the imposition of court costs upon the Meskwaki Tribe for cases which must be dismissed.

The magistrate imposed court costs against the Meskwaki Nation.

The State sought discretionary review of the magistrate’s order. We granted discretionary review. We granted the United States and the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa permission to file amici briefs in support of the State of Iowa. Counsel was appointed to represent Stanton. For the reasons expressed below, we reverse the dismissal of the charges, vacate the order, and remand the cases for further proceedings.

II. Standard of Review.

We review lower court rulings on questions of subject matter jurisdiction for correction of errors at law. State v. Lasley , 705 N.W.2d 481, 485 (Iowa 2005). To the extent resolution of the jurisdictional issue requires statutory interpretation, our review is also at law. Id.

III. Discussion.

A. Introduction. The magistrate dismissed this case based on a broad legal proposition, namely, that Iowa courts lack jurisdiction over crimes committed on the Meskwaki Settlement "regardless of the race or ethnic background of any potential Defendant." Thus, under the magistrate’s order, the state courts lack jurisdiction over all crimes committed on the Meskwaki Settlement, including crimes by non-Indian defendants that were either victimless or where the victims were non-Indians.¹

B. Challenge to Discretionary Appeal Based upon Bypass of Appeal of Magistrate’s Order to the District Court. Stanton asserts that, because the State failed to file a notice of appeal to the district court pursuant to Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.73, "[e]rror was not preserved." In support of her argument, Stanton claims "a party cannot ‘by-pass’ the appeal process in simple misdemeanor

933 N.W.2d 248

cases by failing to seek appellate review via the district court." She cites Vance v. Iowa District Court , 907 N.W.2d 473, 479 (Iowa 2018), and In re M.W. , 894 N.W.2d 526, 532 (Iowa 2017).

The State disagrees. The State points out that under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.73(1), a simple misdemeanor appeal may be taken by the State only when an ordinance or statute is found invalid. The State reasons it may seek discretionary review of a magistrate’s dismissal of a simple misdemeanor, which amounts to a final order, without an unauthorized appeal of the magistrate’s order to the district court.

We agree with the State. Discretionary review is available in an underlying case resulting in "[a] final judgment or order raising a question of law important to the judiciary and the profession." Iowa Code § 814.5(2)(d ) ; see Lasley , 705 N.W.2d at 485. Because Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.73(1) limits the State to appeals in simple misdemeanor cases in which a statute or ordinance is found invalid, the State could not appeal the magistrate’s order in this case to the district court. Additionally, the magistrate’s...