BENCH v. STATE
2021 OK CR 12
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2021Background
- Miles Sterling Bench was convicted of first‑degree murder in Stephens County, sentenced to death, and his direct appeal was denied.
- After McGirt v. Oklahoma, Bench filed a post‑conviction application claiming Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction because he is an Indian and the crime occurred within the Chickasaw Nation reservation.
- The Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to (1) Bench’s Indian status and (2) whether the crime occurred in Indian Country under McGirt; the parties could stipulate facts.
- Parties stipulated Bench had 1/64 Choctaw blood, was an enrolled Choctaw Nation member, and the crime location lay within the historical Chickasaw territory described in treaties; the District Court found the treaties established a Chickasaw reservation that Congress never disestablished, but held the claim procedurally barred.
- This Court reviewed the record, rejected the procedural‑bar ruling (citing Bosse), accepted the District Court’s findings on Indian status and reservation continuity, held Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction, reversed the conviction, and remanded with instructions to dismiss (mandate stayed 20 days).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: Whether Oklahoma had authority to prosecute because the defendant is an Indian and the crime occurred in Indian Country | Bench: he is an Indian (enrolled Choctaw) and the crime occurred within historic Chickasaw reservation, so federal/tribal jurisdiction applies under McGirt | State: accepted stipulations as to status/location but did not contest reservation disestablishment at hearing; generally defended conviction | Held: Bench is an Indian; treaties established a Chickasaw reservation not disestablished; Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction; conviction reversed and dismissal ordered |
| Procedural bar: Whether Bench’s post‑conviction jurisdiction claim is waived for not raising it on direct appeal | Bench: McGirt supplies a previously unavailable legal ground; subject‑matter jurisdiction can be raised anytime | State: argued claim was waived/ barred under state post‑conviction rules | Held: Procedural bar inapplicable—subject‑matter jurisdiction claims arising from McGirt are not waived (Bosse) |
| Adequacy of record / State’s acquiescence: Whether the State’s limited participation left a legal void preventing review | Bench: stipulations and evidence suffice; District Court findings supported | State: strategic choice not to contest reservation status; urged procedural bar | Held: No void preventing review; District Court findings were supported and review for abuse of discretion was appropriate |
| Remedy: Appropriate relief if State lacked jurisdiction | Bench: vacate judgment and sentence and dismiss state prosecution | State: asked for a short stay to allow federal authorities to assume custody/prosecution | Held: Judgment and sentence reversed; case dismissed; mandate stayed 20 days to permit federal action |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020) (reservation‑status test and holding that only Congress can disestablish reservation boundaries)
- Nebraska v. Parker, 136 S. Ct. 1072 (U.S. 2016) (Congressional intent required to disestablish reservation lands)
- Bosse v. State, 484 P.3d 286 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (McGirt‑based jurisdictional claims are not procedurally barred on post‑conviction review)
- State v. Delso, 298 P.3d 1192 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard explained)
- Cravatt v. State, 825 P.2d 277 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992) (subject‑matter jurisdiction principles)
- Armstrong v. State, 248 P. 877 (Okla. Crim. App. 1926) (subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent)
- Magnan v. State, 207 P.3d 397 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (federal exclusive jurisdiction over major crimes in Indian Country)
- Wallace v. State, 935 P.2d 366 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997) (jurisdictional issues are not waivable under Oklahoma law)