GRAYSON v. STATE
485 P.3d 250
Okla. Crim. App.2021Background
- Kadetrix Devon Grayson was tried by jury in Seminole County and convicted of two counts of First Degree Murder and one count of Possession of a Firearm After Former Felony Conviction; he received consecutive life sentences and a concurrent 10-year term.
- Grayson raised five appellate propositions, including ineffective assistance claims, evidentiary/instructional claims, and a jurisdictional claim based on McGirt v. Oklahoma.
- This Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine (a) whether Grayson is an Indian and (b) whether the crimes occurred within the Seminole Nation Reservation; the parties stipulated Grayson is a Seminole Nation member and that the crimes occurred within the historical reservation boundaries.
- The District Court found the Seminole Reservation was established by treaty and purchase (1866 treaty and an 1881 purchase), and that Congress has not clearly disestablished it.
- Applying McGirt, the court concluded the crimes occurred in Indian Country and Grayson is an Indian; therefore Oklahoma state courts lacked jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the convictions and remanded with instructions to dismiss; other propositions were rendered moot. The mandate was stayed 20 days.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under McGirt (reservation status & Indian status) | Grayson argued he is Indian and the crimes occurred in Seminole Reservation, so state lacked jurisdiction under McGirt/Major Crimes Act | State took no position below; on appeal did not contest district court findings | Court: Grayson is Indian; Seminole Reservation exists and was not disestablished; state court lacked jurisdiction — Proposition III granted; vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss |
| Ineffective assistance — poor communication / inability to assist defense | Grayson claimed trial counsel refused adequate communication and prevented his participation | State defended adequacy of representation | Moot — decision on jurisdiction disposes the case (claim not reached) |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to question medical examiner about broken ribs | Grayson alleged counsel failed to impeach/examine medical evidence regarding victim's ribs | State defended counsel's performance | Moot — not addressed because jurisdictional disposition controls |
| Trial court refused "credibility of informers" instruction | Grayson argued instruction should have been given to jury | State argued instruction was not required or supported by evidence | Moot — not addressed due to jurisdictional ruling |
| Cumulative error / due process violation at sentencing | Grayson argued accumulated errors deprived him of due process and reliable sentencing | State disputed cumulative-error claim | Moot — not considered after jurisdictional dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (holding reservation status controls criminal jurisdiction over Indians in Indian Country under Major Crimes Act)
- Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 310 (1942) (historical treatment of Seminole lands and inclusion by purchase)
- Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973) (allotment does not necessarily disestablish reservation status)