BENCH v. STATE
2021 OK CR 12
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2021Background
- Miles Sterling Bench was convicted of first-degree murder in Stephens County, Oklahoma and sentenced to death; direct appeal was denied.
- Bench filed a post-conviction claim asserting the State lacked jurisdiction because he is an Indian and the homicide occurred within the Chickasaw Nation reservation.
- Under McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine (1) Bench’s Indian status and (2) whether the crime occurred in Indian Country (i.e., whether a Chickasaw reservation was established and not disestablished).
- At the hearing the parties stipulated Bench had 1/64 Choctaw blood and was an enrolled Choctaw Nation member, and that the crime site lay within the historical Chickasaw lands described in treaties.
- The district court found a Chickasaw reservation had been established and not disestablished, but concluded the jurisdictional claim was procedurally barred.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held Bench is Indian, the Chickasaw reservation remains, rejected the procedural-bar ruling, reversed the conviction, and remanded with instructions to dismiss (mandate stayed 20 days).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stephens County had jurisdiction because Bench is Indian and the crime occurred in Indian Country | Bench: He is an Indian (1/64 Choctaw, enrolled) and crime occurred within Chickasaw reservation per treaties | State: Accepted stipulations re: status/location but did not contest reservation status below; alternatively relied on procedural defenses | Court: Bench is Indian; treaties established Chickasaw reservation that was not disestablished; Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction; conviction reversed and dismissal ordered |
| Whether the jurisdictional claim is procedurally barred for not being raised on direct appeal | Bench: McGirt supplies a previously unavailable legal basis; subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised anytime | State: Argued waiver/ procedural bar under state post-conviction rules | Court: Rejected procedural bar; jurisdictional defects may be raised at any time; claim not waived |
| Characterization of the federal rule (subject-matter jurisdiction vs. preemption) | (Bench) Jurisdictional defect = subject-matter jurisdiction not waivable | State/concurring judges: Major Crimes Act effect is federal preemption/territorial jurisdiction, not state subject-matter jurisdiction | Court majority treated the defect as jurisdictional for purposes of review and relief; concurring opinions debated the proper label but agreed outcome |
| Remedy and next steps (dismissal; federal custody/prosecution) | Bench: Requested vacatur of judgment and dismissal | State: Asked for a stay so federal authorities could secure custody and consider prosecution | Court: Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss; mandate stayed 20 days (State’s request for 30 days rendered moot) |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (holding that reservations established by treaty remain in effect unless Congress explicitly disestablished them)
- Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072 (analyzing Congressional intent required to disestablish reservation boundaries)
- United States v. Langford, 641 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir.) (characterizing federal Indian criminal statutes as territorial/federal jurisdiction issues)
- Wallace v. State, 935 P.2d 366 (Okla. Crim. App.) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived under Oklahoma law)
- Magnan v. State, 207 P.3d 397 (Okla. Crim. App.) (discussing jurisdiction over major crimes in Indian Country)