678 F.Supp.3d 1332
N.D. Okla.2023Background
- Graham was convicted in 2009 of five counts of first-degree manslaughter and one count of leaving the scene; sentenced to 107 years; conviction became final in 2011.
- She filed a state postconviction application (2012; supplemental 2017) alleging the State lacked jurisdiction because she is Native and the crimes occurred in Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation (Indian‑country claim).
- After McGirt (July 2020) and related federal and OCCA decisions, the Tulsa County District Court (TCDC) granted postconviction relief on April 8, 2021, vacated Graham’s conviction, and she was released the same day; the State did not file a timely postconviction appeal.
- The OCCA subsequently issued Wallace (Aug. 2021), holding McGirt’s reservation holdings would not be applied retroactively in state postconviction proceedings; state and lower courts then moved to reinstate convictions; TCDC vacated its grant and ordered reinstatement but stayed enforcement pending OCCA review.
- The OCCA denied Graham’s writ of prohibition (Apr. 2023); Graham surrendered to custody (Apr. 20, 2023) and filed federal habeas (Apr. 25, 2023). The federal district court granted habeas relief, finding a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation and ordering immediate release and a bar to retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Graham) | Defendant's Argument (White) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reinstating Graham’s conviction after a district court’s final postconviction order deprived her of due process | State courts deprived Graham of a liberty interest by reversing a final, lawful release without the State’s timely appeal; this violated Hicks and substantive due process | State action was state‑law correction of an unauthorized release; no federal due process violation; issue is state‑law | Court: Reinstatement violated Fourteenth Amendment due process because it was arbitrary and fundamentally unfair under the case’s unique facts; habeas granted |
| Whether federal habeas can reach alleged state‑law errors in postconviction proceedings | Graham: When state courts’ misapplication of state law arbitrarily deprives a liberty interest, federal due process review is available (Hicks) | White: Errors concern state postconviction process and are not cognizable on federal habeas | Court: Claim is cognizable because the reinstatement directly affects custody; Preiser and Hicks govern; federal habeas proper |
| Whether § 2254(d) precludes relief because the OCCA adjudicated the federal claim on the merits | Graham: OCCA overlooked the Fourteenth Amendment claim; § 2254(d) does not apply; de novo review warranted | White: OCCA decided the matter on the merits; AEDPA deference bars relief absent clearly established law | Court: OCCA’s majority opinion failed to address Graham’s federal due process claim; § 2254(d) inapplicable; court reviews claim de novo |
| Appropriate remedy for due process violation | Graham: Unconditional release and bar to retrial because state lacked jurisdiction to convict in Indian country | White: Relief barred by AEDPA/state law or limited remedy | Court: Grants unconditional writ, sets aside original and reinstated judgments, bars retrial, and orders immediate release |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020) (held Muscogee (Creek) Reservation was not disestablished; federal Major Crimes Act governs major crimes by Indians in reservation)
- Sharp v. Murphy, 140 S. Ct. 2412 (U.S. 2020) (summary disposition affirming Tenth Circuit on Indian‑country jurisdiction issues)
- Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1980) (due process may require a State to follow its own procedural rules when a liberty interest is at stake)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1973) (habeas corpus is the proper vehicle to challenge present unlawful physical confinement)
- Brown v. Davenport, 142 S. Ct. 1510 (U.S. 2022) (explains limits on federal habeas relief and standards governing review)
- Mays v. Hines, 141 S. Ct. 1145 (U.S. 2021) (explains meaning of "unreasonable" under §2254(d))
- Capps v. Sullivan, 13 F.3d 350 (10th Cir. 1993) (discusses habeas remedies and circumstances permitting an unconditional writ and bar to retrial)
- State ex rel. Matloff v. Wallace, 497 P.3d 686 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (OCCA held McGirt not retroactive in state postconviction proceedings; central to state courts’ later reinstatements)